Eran.—I am come as I promised. ’Tis yours to adopt one of
two alternatives, and either furnish a solution of my difficulties, or
assent to what I and my friends lay down.

Orth.—I accept your challenge, for I think it right and fair. But
we must first recall to mind at what point we left off our discourse
yesterday, and what was the conclusion of our argument.

183Eran.—I will remind you of
the end. I remember our agreeing that the divine Word remained
immutable, and took flesh, and was not himself changed into
flesh.

Orth.—You seem to be content with the points agreed on, for you
have faithfully called them to mind.

Eran.—Yes, and I have already said that the man that withstands
teachers so many and so great is indubitably out of his mind. I was
moreover put to not a little shame to find that Apollinarius used the
same terms as the orthodox, although in his books about the incarnation
his drift has distinctly been in another direction.

Orth.—Then we affirm that the Divine Word took flesh?

Eran.—We do.

Orth.—And what do we mean by the flesh? A body only, as is the
view of Arius and Eunomius, or body and soul?

Eran.—Body and soul.

Orth.—What kind of soul? The reasonable soul, or that which is by
some termed the phytic, vegetable,11751175φυτικός, of or belonging to φυτόν, or plant;
but though φυτὸν is opposed
to ξῷον, it is also used
of any creature, and here seems to mean no more than the soul of
physical life, and nothing beyond.
that is, vital? for the fable-mongering quackery of the Apollinarians
compels us to ask unseemly questions.

Eran.—Does then Apollinarius make a distinction of souls?11761176 cf. p. 132.

Orth.—He says that man is composed of three parts, of a body, a
vital soul, and further of a reasonable soul, which he terms mind. Holy
Scripture on the contrary knows only one, not two souls; and this is
plainly taught us by the formation of the first man. For it is written
God took dust from the earth and “formed man,” and
“breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a
living soul.”11771177Gen. ii. 7 And in the
gospels the Lord said to the holy disciples “Fear not them which
kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him
which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”11781178Matt. x. 28. cf. Luke xii. 4,
5

And the very divine Moses when
he told the tale of them that came down into Egypt and stated with whom
each tribal chief had come in, added, “All the souls that came
out of Egypt were seventy-five,”11791179Gen. xlvi. 20, lxx. In the
Hebrew the number is but seventy, including Jacob himself. St. Stephen,
as was natural in a Hellenized Jew follows the lxx. (Acts vii.
14.)
For the number 75 there were doubtless important traditional
authorities known to the lxx.
reckoning one soul for each immigrant. And the divine apostle at Troas,
when all supposed Eutychus to be dead, said “Trouble not
yourselves for his soul is in him.”11801180Acts xx. 10

Eran.—It is shewn clearly that each man has one soul.

Orth.—But Apollinarius says two; and that the Divine Word took
the unreasonable, and that instead of the reasonable, he was made in
the flesh. It was on this account that I asked what kind of soul you
assert to have been assumed with the body.

Eran.—I say the reasonable. For I follow the Divine
Scripture.

Orth.—We agree then that the “form of a servant”
assumed by the Divine Word was complete.

Eran.—Yes; complete.

Orth.—And rightly; for since the whole first man became subject
to sin, and lost the impression of the Divine Image,11811181 This “lost” must be qualified. The Scriptural doctrine
is that the “image of God” though defaced and marred, is
not lost or destroyed. After the flood the “image of God”
is still quoted as against murder Gen. ix. 6. St. James urges
it as a reason against cursing (iv.
9).
cf. 1
Cor. xi. 7. So the IXth Article declares original sin to be, not the nature,
which is good, but the “fault and corruption of the nature of
every man;” in short the “image of God,” like the
gifts of God, as David in Browning’s “Saul” has it,
“a man may waste, desecrate, never quite lose.” cf.
p. 164 and note. and the race followed, it results that
the Creator, with the intention of renewing the blurred image, assumed
the nature in its entirety, and stamped an imprint far better than the
first.

Eran.—True. But now I beg you in the first place that the meaning
of the terms employed may be made quite clear, that thus our discussion
may advance without hindrance, and no investigation of doubtful points
intervene to interrupt our conversation.

Orth.—What you say is admirable. Ask now concerning whatever
point you like.

Eran.—What must we call Jesus the Christ? Man?

Orth.—By neither name alone, but by both. For the Divine Man
after being made man was named Jesus Christ. “For,” it is
written, “Thou shalt call His name Jesus for he shall save His
people from their sins,”11821182Matt. i. 21 and unto you is
born this day in the city of David Christ the Lord.11831183Luke ii. 11τίκτεται is substituted for ἐτέχθη, in
addition to the omission of “a Saviour which is.” In this
verse the mss. do not vary. Now these are angels’ voices. But
before the Incarnation he was named God, son of God, only begotten,
Lord, Divine Word, and Creator. For it is written “In the
beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word was
God,”11841184John i. 1 and “all things were made by
Him,”11851185John i. 3 and “He was life,”11861186John i. 4 and “He 184was the true light which
lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” There are also
other similar passages, declaring the divine nature. But after the
Incarnation He was named Jesus and Christ.

Eran.—Therefore the Lord Jesus is God only.

Orth.—You hear that the divine Word was made man, and do you call
him God only?

Eran.—Since He became man without being changed, but remained
just what He was before, we must call Him just what He was.

Orth.—The divine Word was and is and will be immutable. But when
He had taken man’s nature He became man. It behoves us therefore
to confess both natures, both that which took, and that which was
taken.

Eran.—We must name Him by the nobler.

Orth—Man,—I mean man the animal,—is he a simple or a
composite being?

Eran.—Composite.

Orth.—Composed of what component parts?

Eran.—Of a body and a soul.

Orth.—And of these natures whether is nobler?

Eran.—Clearly the soul, for it is reasonable and immortal, and
has been entrusted with the sovereignty of the animal. But the body is
mortal and perishable, and without the soul is unreasonable, and a
corpse.

Orth.—Then the divine Scripture ought to have called the animal
after its more excellent part.

Eran.—It does so call it, for it calls them that came out of
Egypt souls. For with seventy-five souls, it says, Israel came down
into Egypt.

Orth.—But does the divine Scripture never call any one after the
body?

Eran.—It calls them that are the slaves of flesh, flesh. For
“God,” it is written, “said my spirit shall not
always remain in these men, for they are flesh.”11871187Gen. vi. 3, lxx. and Marg.
in R.V.

Orth.—But without blame no one is called flesh?

Eran.—I do not remember.

Orth.—Then I will remind you, and point out to you that even the
very saints are called “flesh.” Answer now. What would you
call the apostles? Spiritual, or fleshly?

Eran.—Spiritual;—and leaders and teachers of the
spiritual.

Orth.—Hear now the holy Paul when he says “But when it
pleased God who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me
by his grace, to reveal his son in me that I might preach him among the
heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood neither went
I up to them that were apostles before me.”11881188Gal. i.
15–17 Does he so style the apostles because
he blames them?

Eran.—Certainly not.

Orth.—Is it not that he names them after their visible nature,
and comparing the calling which is of men with that which is of
heaven?

Eran.—It is made perfectly plain that Holy Scripture names human
nature from the flesh without the least blame.

Orth.—I will proceed to give you the yet further
proof.

Eran.—What further?

Orth.—The fact that sometimes when giving blame the divine
Scripture uses only the name of soul.

Eran.—And where will you find this in holy Scripture?

Orth.—Hear the Lord God speaking through the prophet Ezekiel
“The soul that sinneth it shall die.”11911191Ez. xviii. 4 and 20 Moreover through the great Moses He saith
“If a soul sin—”11921192Lev. v. 1 And again
“It shall come to pass that every soul that will not hear that
prophet shall be cut off.”11931193 The reference seems to be a loose combination of Numbers ix. 13. with Deut.
xviii. 19 And many
other passages of the same kind may be found.

Eran.—This is plainly proved.

Orth.—In cases, then, where there is a certain natural union, and
a combination of created things, and of beings connected by service and
by time, it is not the custom of holy Scripture to use a name for this
being derived only from the nobler nature; it names it indiscriminately
both by the meaner and by the nobler. If so, how can you find fault
with us for calling Christ the Lord, man, after confessing Him to be
God, when many things combine to compel us to do so?

Eran.—What is there to compel us to call the Saviour Christ,
“man”?

Orth.—The diverse and mutually inconsistent opinions of the
heretics.

Eran.—What opinions, and contrary to what?

185Orth.—That of Arius to
that of Sabellius. The one divides the substances: the other confounds
the hypostases. Arius introduces three substances, and Sabellius makes
one hypostasis instead of three.11941194 Vide note on page 36. Tell me now,
how ought we to heal both maladies? Must we apply the same drug for
both ailments, or for each the proper one?

Eran.—For each the proper one.

Orth.—We shall therefore endeavour to persuade Arius to
acknowledge the substance of the Holy Trinity, and we shall adduce
proofs of this position from Holy Scripture.

Eran.—Yes: this ought to be done.

Orth.—But in arguing with Sabellius we shall adopt the opposite
course. Concerning the substance we shall advance no argument, for even
he acknowledges but one.

Eran.—Plainly.

Orth.—But we shall do our best to cure the unsound part of his
doctrine.

Eran.—We say that where he halts is about the
hypostases.

Orth.—Since then he asserts there to be one hypostasis of the
Trinity, we shall point out to him that the divine Scripture proclaims
three hypostases.

Eran.—This is the course to take. But we have wandered from the
subject.

Orth.—Not at all. We are collecting proofs of it, as you will
learn in a moment. But tell me, do you understand that all the heresies
which derive their name from Christ, acknowledge both the Godhead of
Christ and His manhood?

Eran.—By no means.

Orth.—Do not some acknowledge the godhead alone, and some the
manhood alone?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—And some but a part of the manhood?

Eran.—I think so. But it will be well for us to lay down the
names of the holders of these different opinions, that the point under
discussion may be made plainer.

Orth.—I will tell you the names. Simon, Menander, Marcion,
Valentinus, Basilides, Bardesanes, Cerdo, and Manes, openly denied the
humanity of Christ. On the other hand Artemon, Theodotus, Sabellius,
Paul of Samosata, Marcellus, and Photinus, fell into the diametrically
opposite blasphemy; for they preach Christ to be man only, and deny the
Godhead which existed before the ages. Arius and Eunomius make the
Godhead of the only begotten a created Godhead, and maintain that He
assumed only a body. Apollinarius confesses that the assumed body was a
living11951195ἔμψυχον body, but in his work deprives the
reasonable soul alike of its honour and of its salvation. This is the
contrariety of these corrupt opinions. But do you, with all due love of
truth, tell us, must we institute a discussion with these men, or shall
we let them go dashed down headlong and howling to their
doom?

Eran.—It is inhuman to neglect the sick.

Orth.—Very well; then we must compassionate them, and do our best
to heal them.

Eran.—By all means.

Orth.—If then you had scientifically learned how to cure the
body, and round you stood many men asking you to cure them, and shewing
their various ailments, such as arise from running at the eyes, injury
to the ears, tooth-ache, contraction of the joints, palsy, bile, or
phlegm, what would you have done? Tell me; would you have applied the
same treatment to all, or to each that which was
appropriate?

Eran.—I should certainly have given to each the appropriate
remedy.

Orth.—So by applying cold treatment to the hot, and heating the
cold, and loosing the strained, and giving tension to the loose, and
drying the moist, and moistening the dry, you would have driven out the
diseases and restored the health which they had expelled.

Eran.—This is the treatment prescribed by medical science, for
contraries, it is said, are the remedies of contraries.

Orth.—If you were a gardener, would you give the same treatment
to all plants? or their own to the mulberry and the fig, and so to the
pear, to the apple, and to the vine what is fitting to each, and in a
word to each plant its own proper culture?

Eran.—It is obvious that each plant requires its own
treatment.

Orth.—And if you undertook to be a ship builder, and saw that the
mast wanted repair, would you try to mend it in the same way as you
would the tiller? or would you give it the proper treatment of a
mast?

Eran.—There is no question about these things: everything demands
its own treatment, be it plant or limb or gear or tackle.

Orth.—Then is it not monstrous to apply to the body and to things
without life to each its own appropriate treatment, and not to keep
this rule of treatment in the case of the soul?

186Eran.—Most unjust; nay,
rather stupid than unrighteous. They who adopt any other method are
quite unskilled in the healing art.

Orth.—Then in disputing against each heresy we shall use the
appropriate remedy?

Eran.—By all means.

Orth.—And it is fitting treatment to add what is wanting and to
remove what is superfluous?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—In endeavouring then to cure Photinus and Marcellus and
their adherents, in order to carry out the rule of treatment, what
should we add?

Eran.—The acknowledgment of the Godhead of Christ, for it is this
that they lack.

Orth.—But about the manhood we will say nothing to them, for they
acknowledge the Lord Christ to be man.

Eran.—You are right.

Orth.—And in arguing with Arius and Eunomius about the
incarnation of the only begotten, what should we persuade them to add
to their own confession?

Eran.—The assumption of the soul; for they say that the divine
Word took only a body.

Orth.—And what does Apollinarius lack to make his teaching
accurate about the incarnation?

Eran.—Not to separate the mind from the soul, but to confess
that, with the body, was assumed a reasonable soul.

Orth.—Then shall we dispute with him on this point?

Eran.—Certainly.

Orth.—But under this head what did we assert to be confessed, and
what altogether denied, by Marcion, Valentinus, Manes and their
adherents?

Eran.—That they admitted their belief in the Godhead of Christ,
but do not accept the doctrine of His manhood.

Orth.—We shall therefore do our best to persuade them to accept
also the doctrine of the manhood, and not to call the divine
incarnation11961196οἰκονουίαν. cf. p. 72, note. a mere appearance.

Eran.—It will be well so to do.

Orth.—We will therefore tell them that it is right to style the
Christ not only God, but also man.

Eran.—By all means.

Orth.—And how is it possible for us to induce others to style the
Christ ‘man’ while we excuse ourselves from doing so? They
will not yield to our persuasion, but on the contrary will convict us
of agreeing with them.

Eran.—And how can we, confessing as we do that the divine Word
took flesh and a reasonable soul, agree with them?

Orth.—If we confess the fact, why then shun the word?

Eran.—It is right to name the Christ from His nobler
qualities.

Orth.—Keep this rule then. Do not speak of Him as crucified, nor
yet as risen from the dead, and so on.

Eran.—But these are the names of the sufferings of salvation.
Denial of the sufferings implies denial of the salvation.

Orth.—And the name Man is the name of a nature. Not to pronounce
the name is to deny the nature: denial of the nature is denial of the
sufferings, and denial of the sufferings does away with the
salvation.

Eran.—I hold it profitable to acknowledge the assumed nature; but
to style the Saviour of the world man is to belittle the glory of the
Lord.

Orth.—Do you then deem yourself wiser than Peter and Paul; aye,
and than the Saviour Himself? For the Lord said to the Jews “Why
do ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I
heard of my Father?”11971197John viii. 40. Note the
looseness of citation. And He
frequently called Himself Son of Man.

And the meritorious Peter, in
his sermon to the Jewish people, says,—“Ye men of Israel,
hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among
you.”11981198Acts ii. 22 And the blessed Paul, when
bringing the message of salvation to the chiefs of the Areopagus, among
many other things said this,—

“And the times of this
ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to
repent: Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the
world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he
hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the
dead.”11991199Acts xvii. 30,
31 He then who excuses himself from
using the name appointed and preached by the Lord and his Apostles
deems himself wiser than even these great instructors, aye, even than
the very well-spring of the wisest.

Eran.—They gave this instruction to the unbelievers. Now the
greater part of the world12001200ἠ οἰκουμένη
means of course the Empire and the adjacent countries,
the “orbis veteribus notus.” has professed the
faith.

Orth.—But we have still among us Jews 187and pagans and of heretics
systems innumerable, and to each of these we must give fit and
appropriate teaching. But, supposing we were all of one mind, tell me
now, what harm is there in calling the Christ both God and man? Do we
not behold in Him perfect Godhead, and manhood likewise lacking in
nothing?

Eran.—This we have owned again and again.

Orth.—Why then deny what we have again and again
owned?

Eran.—I hold it unnecessary to call the Christ
‘man,’—especially when believer is conversing with
believer.

Orth.—Do you consider the divine Apostle a believer?

Eran.—Yes: a teacher of all believers.

Orth.—And do you deem Timothy worthy of being so
styled?

Eran.—Yes: both as a disciple of the Apostle, and as a teacher of
the rest.

Orth.—Very well: then hear the teacher of teachers writing to his
very perfect disciple. “There is one God, and one mediator
between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom
for all.”120112011 Tim. ii. 5,
6 Do stop your idle
prating, and laying down the law about divine names. Moreover in this
passage that very name ‘mediator’ stands indicative both of
Godhead and of manhood. He is called a mediator because He does not
exist as God alone; for how, if He had had nothing of our nature could
He have mediated between us and God? But since as God He is joined with
God as having the same substance, and as man with us, because from us
He took the form of a servant, He is properly termed a mediator,
uniting in Himself distinct qualities by the unity of natures of
Godhead, I mean, and of manhood.12021202 cf. Job ix. 33. “daysman betwixt us that might lay his hand upon us
both.”

Orth.—He was a type of the reality: but the type has not all the
qualities of the reality. Wherefore though Moses was not by nature God,
yet, to fulfil the type, he was called a god. For He says “See, I
have made thee a god to Pharaoh.”12041204Exodus vii. 1
And then directly afterwards he assigns him also a Prophet as though to
God, for “Aaron thy brother,” He says, “shall be thy
Prophet.”12051205Ex. vii. 1 But the reality is
by nature God, and by nature man.

Eran.—But who would call one not having the distinct
characteristics of the archetype, a type?

Orth.—The imperial images, it seems, you do not call images of
the emperor.

Eran.—Yes, I do.

Orth.—Yet they have not all the characteristics which their
archetype has. For in the first place they have neither life nor
reason; secondly they have no inner organs, heart, I mean, and belly
and liver and the adjacent parts. Further they present the appearance
of the organs of sense, but perform none of their functions, for they
neither hear, nor speak, nor see; they cannot write; they cannot walk,
nor perform any other human action; and yet they are called imperial
statues. In this sense Moses was a mediator and Christ was a mediator;
but the former as an image and type and the latter as reality. But that
I may make this point clearer to you from yet another authority, call
to mind the words used of Melchisedec in the Epistle to the
Hebrews.

Eran.—What words?

Orth.—Those in which the divine Apostle comparing the Levitical
priesthood with that of the Christ likens Melchisedec in other respects
to the Lord Christ, and says that the Lord had the priesthood after the
order of Melchisedec.12061206Hebrews vi.
20

Eran.—I think the words of the divine Apostle are as
follows;—“For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of
the most high God who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the
kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all;
first being by interpretation king of righteousness, and after that
also king of Salem, which is king of peace; without father, without
mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of
life; but made like unto the son of God; abideth a priest
continually.”12071207Hebrews vii. 1, 2,
3 I presume you
spoke of this passage.

Orth.—Yes, I spoke of this; and I must praise you for not
mutilating it, but for quoting the whole. Tell me now, does each one of
these points fit Melchisedec in nature and reality?

Eran.—Who has the audacity to deny a fitness where the divine
apostle has asserted it?

Orth.—The fault lies with you for openly opposing the truth.
Answer then.

Eran.—There is one only unbegotten, who is God and
Father.

Orth.—Then we assert that Melchisedec was begotten?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—But the passage about him teaches the opposite. Remember
the words which you quoted a moment ago, “Without father, without
mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of
life.” How then do the words “Without father and without
mother” fit him; and how the statement that he neither received
beginning of existence nor end, since all this transcends
humanity?

Eran.—These things do in fact overstep the limits of human
nature.

Orth.—Then shall we say that the Apostle told lies?

Eran.—God forbid.

Orth.—How then is it possible both to testify to the truth of the
Apostle, and apply the supernatural to Melchisedec?

Eran.—The passage is a very difficult one, and requires much
explanation.

Orth.—For any one willing to consider it with attention it will
not be hard to attain perception of the meaning of the words. After
saying “without father, without mother, without descent, having
neither beginning of days nor end of life,” the divine Apostle
adds “made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest
continually.”12081208Heb. vii. 3 Here he plainly
teaches us that the Lord Christ is archetype of Melchisedec in things
concerning the human nature. And he speaks of Melchisedec as
“made like unto the Son of God.” Now let us examine the
point in this manner;—do you say that the Lord had a father
according to the flesh?

Eran.—Certainly not.

Orth.—Why?

Eran.—He was born of the holy Virgin alone.

Orth.—He is therefore properly styled “without
father”?

Eran.—True.

Orth.—Do you say that according to the divine Nature He had a
mother?12091209 The
bearing of this on Theodoret’s relation to Nestorianism will be
observed.

Eran.—Certainly not.

Orth.—For He was begotten of the Father alone before the
ages?

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—And yet, as the generation He has of the Father is
ineffable, He is spoken of as “without descent.”
“Who” says the prophet “shall declare His
generation?”12101210Is. liii. 8

Eran.—You are right.

Orth.—Thus it becomes Him to have neither beginning of days nor
end of life; for He is without beginning, indestructible, and, in a
word, eternal, and coeternal with the Father.

Eran.—This is my view too. But we must now consider how this fits
the admirable Melchisedec.

Orth.—As an image and type. The image, as we have just observed,
has not all the properties of the archetype. Thus to the Saviour these
qualities are proper both by nature and in reality; but the story of
the origin of the race has attributed them to Melchisedec. For after
telling us of the father of the patriarch Abraham, and of the father
and mother of Isaac, and in like manner of Jacob and of his sons, and
exhibiting the pedigree of our first forefathers, of Melchisedec it
records neither the father nor the mother, nor does it teach that he
traced his descent from any one of Noah’s sons, to the end that
he may be a type of Him who is in reality without father, and without
mother. And this is what the divine Apostle would have us understand,
for in this very passage he says further, “But he whose descent
is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him
that had the promises.”12111211Heb. vii. 6

Eran.—Then, since Holy Scripture has not mentioned his parents,
can he be called without father and without mother?

Orth.—If he had really been without father and without mother, he
would not have been an image, but a reality. But since these are his
qualities not by nature, but according to the dispensation of the
Divine Scripture, he exhibits the type of the reality.

Orth.—Listen then to the Apostle. He says: “For a man
indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and
glory of God.”121312131 Cor. xi. 7

Eran.—Granted, then, that he is an image of God.

Orth.—According to your argument then he must needs have plainly
preserved the 189characters of the archetype, and have been uncreate, uncompounded,
and infinite. He ought in like manner to have been able to create out
of the non existent, he ought to have fashioned all things by his word
and without labour, in addition to this to have been free from
sickness, sorrow, anger, and sin, to have been immortal and
incorruptible and to possess all the qualities of the
archetype.

Eran.—Man is not an image of God in every respect.

Orth.—Though truly an image in the qualities in which you would
grant him to be so, you will find that he is separated by a wide
interval from the reality.

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Consider now too this point. The divine Apostle calls the
Son the image of the Father; for he says “Who is the image of the
invisible God?”12141214Coloss. i. 15

Eran.—What then; has not the Son all the qualities of the
Father?

Orth.—He is not Father. He is not uncaused. He is not
unbegotten.

Eran.—If He were He would not be Son.

Orth.—Then does not what I said hold good; the image has not all
the qualities of the archetype?

Eran.—True.

Orth.—Thus too the divine Apostle said that Melchisedec is made
like unto the Son of God.12151215Hebrews vii.
3

Eran.—Suppose we grant that he is without Father and without
Mother and without descent, as you have said. But how are we to
understand his having neither beginning of days nor end of
life?

Orth.—The holy Moses when writing the ancient genealogy tells us
how Adam being so many years old begat Seth,12161216Gen. iv. 25
and when he had lived so many years he ended his life.12171217Gen. v. 5 So too he writes of Seth, of Enoch, and
of the rest, but of Melchisedec he mentions neither beginning of
existence nor end of life. Thus as far as the story goes he has neither
beginning of days nor end of life, but in truth and reality the only
begotten Son of God never began to exist and shall never have an
end.

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Then, so far as what belongs to God and is really divine is
concerned, Melchisedec is a type of the Lord Christ; but as far as the
priesthood is concerned, which belongs rather to man than to God, the
Lord Christ was made a priest after the order of Melchisedec.12181218Heb. vi. 20 For Melchisedec was a high priest of the
people, and the Lord Christ for all men has made the right holy
offering of salvation.

Eran.—We have spent many words on this matter.

Orth.—Yet more were needed, as you know, for you said the point
was a difficult one.

Eran.—Let us return to the question before us.

Orth.—What was the question?

Eran.—On my remarking that Christ must not be called man, but
only God, you yourself besides many other testimonies adduced also the
well known words of the Apostle which he has used in his epistle
Timothy—“One God, one mediator between God and men, the
man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in
due time.”121912191 Tim. ii. 5,
6

Orth.—I remember from what point we diverged into this
digression. It was when I had said that the name of mediator exhibits
the two natures of the Saviour, and you said that Moses was called a
mediator though he was only a man and not God and man. I was therefore
under the necessity of following up these points to show that the type
has not all the qualities of the archetype. Tell me, then, whether you
allow that the Saviour ought also to be called man.

Eran.—I call Him God, for He is God’s Son.

Orth.—If you call him God, because you have learnt that he is
God’s Son, call him also man, for he often called Himself
“Son of Man.”

Eran.—The name man does not apply to Him in the same way as the
name God.

Orth.—As not really belonging to Him or for some other
reason?

Eran.—God is his name by nature; man is the designation of the
Incarnation.12201220οἰκονομία. Vide p. 72 n.

Orth.—But are we to look on the Incarnation as real, or as
something imaginary and false?

Eran.—As real.

Orth.—If then the grace of the Incarnation is real, and what we
call Incarnation is the divine Word’s being made man, then the
name man is real; for after taking man’s nature He is called
man.

Eran.—Before His passion He was styled man, but afterward He was
no longer so styled.

Orth.—But it was after the Passion and the Resurrection that the
divine Apostle wrote the Epistle to Timothy wherein he speaks of
190the Saviour Christ
as man,122112211 Tim. ii. 5 and writing after the Passion and
the Resurrection to the Corinthians he exclaims “For since by man
came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.”122212221 Cor. xv. 21 And in order to make his meaning clear he
adds, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive.”122312231 Cor. xv. 22 And after the
Passion and the Resurrection the divine Peter, in his address to the
Jews, called Him man.12241224Acts ii. 22 And after His
being taken up into heaven, Stephen the victorious, amid the storm of
stones, said to the Jews, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and
the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”12251225Acts vii. 56 Are we to suppose ourselves wiser than the
illustrious heralds of the truth?

Eran.—I do not suppose myself wiser than the holy doctors, but I
fail to find the use of the name.

Orth.—How then could you persuade them that deny the incarnation
of the Lord, Marcionists, I mean, and Manichees, and all the rest who
are thus unsound, to accept the teaching of the truth, unless you
adduce these and similar proofs with the object of shewing that the
Lord Christ is not God only but also man?

Eran.—Perhaps it is necessary to adduce them.

Orth.—Why not then teach the faithful the reality of the
doctrine? Are you forgetful of the apostolic precept enjoining us to be
“ready to give an answer.”122612261 Peter iii.
15
Now let us look at the matter in this light. Does the best general
engage the enemy, attack with arrows and javelins, and endeavour to
break their column all alone, or does he also arm his men, and marshal
them, and rouse their hearts to play the man?

Eran.—He ought rather to do this latter.

Orth.—Yes; for it is not the part of a general to expose his own
life, and take his place in the ranks, and let his men go fast asleep,
but rather to keep them awake for their work at their post.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—This is what the divine Paul did, for in writing to them
who had made profession of their faith he said, “Take unto you
the whole armour of God that ye be able to stand against the wiles of
the Devil.”12271227Eph. vi. 11 and 13, and observe looseness
of quotation. And again,
“Stand therefore with your loins girt about with truth,”12281228Eph. vi. 14 and so on. Bear in mind too what we
have already said, that a physician supplies what nature lacks. Does he
find the cold redundant? He supplies the hot, and so on with the rest;
and this is what the Lord does.

Eran.—And where will you show that the Lord has done
this?

Orth.—In the holy gospels.

Eran.—Show me then and fulfil your promise.

Orth.—What did the Jews consider our Saviour Christ?

Eran.—A man.

Orth.—And that He was also God they were wholly
ignorant.

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—Was it not then necessary for the ignorant to
learn?

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Listen to Him then saying to them: “Many good works
have I shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone
me?”12291229John x. 32 And when they replied: “For a
good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou
being a man makest thyself God,”12301230John x. 33
He added “It is written in your law I said ye are gods. If he
called them gods unto whom the word of God came and the scripture
cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and
sent into the world thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of
God? If I do not the works of my father believe me not…that I am
in the Father and the Father is in me.”12311231John x. 34, 35, 36, 37,
38.
Observe the variation in 34, and the omission in 38.

Eran.—In the passages you have just read you have shewn that the
Lord shewed Himself to the Jews to be God and not man.

Orth.—Yes, for they did not need to learn what they knew; that He
was a man they knew, but they did not know that He was from the
beginning God. He adopted this same course in the case of the
Pharisees; for when He saw them accosting Him as a mere man He asked
them “What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?”12321232Matt. xxii.
42 And when they said “Of
David” He went on “How then doth David calling him Lord say
‘The Lord said unto my Lord sit thou on my right
hand.’”12331233Matt. xxii. 43 and 44 Then He goes
on to argue, “If then He is His Lord how is He His
Son?”

Eran.—You have brought testimony against yourself, for the Lord
plainly taught the Pharisees to call Him not “Son of David”
but “Lord of David.” Wherefore He is distinctly shown
wishing to be called God and not man.

Orth.—I am afraid you have not attended 191to the divine teaching. He did
not repudiate the name of “Son of David,” but He added that
He ought also to be believed to be Lord of David. This He clearly shews
in the words “If He is his Lord how is He then his Son?” He
did not say “if He is Lord He is not Son,” but “how
is He his Son?” instead of saying in one respect He is Lord and
in another Son. These passages both distinctly show the Godhead and the
manhood.

Eran.—There is no need of argument. The Lord distinctly teaches
that He does not wish to be called Son of David.

Orth.—Then He ought to have told the blind men and the woman of
Canaan and the multitude not to call Him Son of David, and yet the
blind men cried out “Thou Son of David have mercy on us.”12341234Matt. xx. 31 And the woman of Canaan “Have
mercy on me O Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a
Devil.”12351235Matt. xv. 22 And the
multitude: “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He that
cometh in the name of the Lord.”12361236Matt. xxi. 9 And not only did He not take it ill, but
even praised their faith; for the blind He freed from their long weary
night and granted them the power of sight; the maddened and distraught
daughter of the woman of Canaan He healed and drove out the wicked
demon; and when the chief priests and Pharisees were offended at them
that shouted “Hosanna to the Son of David” He did not
merely not prevent them from shouting, but even sanctioned their
acclamation, for, said He, “I tell you that if these should hold
their peace the stones would immediately cry out.”12371237Luke xix. 40

Eran.—He put up with this style of address before the
resurrection in condescension to the weakness of them that had not yet
properly believed. But after the resurrection these names are
needless.

Orth.—Where shall we rank the blessed Paul? among the perfect or
the imperfect?

Eran.—It is wrong to joke about serious things.

Orth.—It is wrong to make light of the reading of the divine
oracles.

Eran.—And who is such a wretch as to despise his own
salvation?

Orth.—Answer my question, and then you will learn your
ignorance.

Eran.—What question?

Orth.—Where are we to rank the divine Apostle?

Eran.—Plainly among the most perfect, and one of the perfect
teachers.

Orth.—And when did he begin his teaching?

Eran.—After the ascension of the Saviour, the coming of the
Spirit, and the stoning of the victorious Stephen.

Orth.—Paul, at the very end of his life, when writing his last
letter to his disciple Timothy, and in giving him, as it were, his
paternal inheritance by will, added “Remember that Jesus Christ
of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my
gospel.”123812382 Tim. ii. 8 Then he went
on to mention his sufferings on behalf of the gospel, and thus showed
its truth saying, “Wherein I suffer trouble as an evil doer even
unto bonds.”123912392 Tim. ii. 9

It were easy for me to adduce
many similar testimonies, but I have judged it needless to do
so.

Eran.—You promised to prove that the Lord supplied the lacking
instruction to them that needed, and you have shown that He discoursed
about His own Godhead to the Pharisees, and to the rest of the Jews.
But that He gave also His instruction about the flesh you have not
shewn.

Orth.—It would have been quite superfluous to have discoursed
about the flesh which was before their eyes, for He was plainly seen
eating and drinking and toiling and sleeping. Furthermore, to omit the
many and various events before the passion, after His resurrection He
proved to His disbelieving disciples not His Godhead but His manhood;
for He said, “Behold my hands and my feet that it is I myself.
Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me
have.”12401240Luke xxiv. 39

Now I have fulfilled my promise,
for we have proved the giving of instruction about the Godhead to them
that were ignorant of the Godhead, and about the resurrection of the
flesh to them that denied this latter. Cease therefore from contending,
and confess the two natures of the Saviour.

Eran.—There were two before the union, but, after combining, they
made one nature.

Orth.—When do you say that the union was effected?

Eran.—I say at the exact moment of the conception.

Orth.—And do you deny that the divine Word existed before the
conception?

Orth.—But was formed, after the salutation of the angel, of the
Holy Ghost?

Eran.—So I say.

Orth.—Therefore before the union there were not two natures but
only one. For if the Godhead pre-existed, but the manhood was not
co-existent, being formed after the angelic salutation, and the union
being coincident with the formation, then before the union there was
one nature, that which exists always and existed before the ages. Now
let us again consider this point. Do you understand the making of flesh
or becoming man to be anything other than the union?

Eran.—No.

Orth.—For when He took flesh He was made flesh.

Eran.—Plainly.

Orth.—And the union coincides with the taking flesh.

Eran.—So I say.

Orth.—So before the making man there was one nature. For if both
union and making man are identical, and He was made man by taking
man’s nature, and the form of God took the form of a servant,
then before the union the divine nature was one.

Eran.—And how are the union and the making man
identical?

Orth.—A moment ago you confessed that there is no distinction
between these terms.

Eran.—You led me astray by your arguments.

Orth.—Then, if you like, let us go over the same ground
again.

Eran.—We had better so do.

Orth.—Is there a distinction between the incarnation and the
union, according to the nature of the transaction?

Eran.—Certainly; a very great distinction.

Orth.—Explain fully the character of this distinction.

Eran.—Even the sense of the terms shows the distinction, for the
word “incarnation” shows the taking of the flesh, while the
word “union” indicates the combination of distinct
things.

Orth.—Do you represent the incarnation to be anterior to the
union?

Eran.—By no means.

Orth.—You say that the union took place in the
conception?

Eran.—I do.

Orth.—Therefore if not even the least moment of time intervened
between the taking of flesh and the union, and the assumed nature did
not precede the assumption and the union, then incarnation and union
signify one and the same thing, and so before the union and incarnation
there was one nature, while after the incarnation we speak properly of
two, of that which took and of that which was taken.

Eran.—I say that Christ was of two natures, but I deny two
natures.

Orth.—Explain to us then in what sense you understand the
expression “of two natures;” like gilded silver? like the
composition of electron?12411241 The
metallic compound called electron is described by Strabo p. 146 as the
mixed residuum, or scouring, (κάθαρμα) left after the first smelting of gold ore. Pliny (H. N. xxxiii.
23) describes it as containing 1 part silver to 4 gold. cf. Soph.
Antig. 1038, and Herod. i. 50. like the solder
made of lead and tin?

Eran.—I deny that the union is like any of these; it is
ineffable, and passes all understanding.

Orth.—I too confess that the manner of the union cannot be
comprehended. But I have at all events been instructed by the divine
Scripture that each nature remains unimpaired after the
union.

Eran.—And where is this taught in the divine
Scripture?

Orth.—It is all full of this teaching.

Eran.—Give proof of what you assert.

Orth.—Do you not acknowledge the properties of each
nature?

Eran.—No: not, that is, after the union.

Orth.—Let us then learn this very point from the divine
Scripture.

Eran.—I am ready to obey the divine Scripture.

Orth.—When, then, you hear the divine John exclaiming “In
the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was
God”12421242John i. 1 and “By Him all things were
made”12431243John i. 3 and the rest of the parallel
passages, do you affirm that the flesh, or the divine Word, begotten
before the ages of the Father, was in the beginning with God, and was
by nature God, and made all things?

Eran.—I say that these things belong to God the Word. But I do
not separate Him from the flesh made one with Him.

Orth.—Neither do we separate the flesh from God the Word, nor do
we make the union a confusion.

Eran.—I recognise one nature after the union.

Orth.—When did the Evangelists write the gospel? Was it before
the union, or a very long time after the union?

193Eran.—Plainly after the
union, the nativity, the miracles, the passion, the resurrection, the
taking up into heaven, and the coming of the Holy Ghost.

Orth.—Hear then John saying “In the beginning was the word,
and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the
beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was
not anything made”12441244John i.
1–3 and so on. Hear
too Matthew, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of
David,—Son of Abraham,”—and so on.12451245Matt. i. 1 Luke too traced His genealogy to Abraham
and David.12461246Luke iii. 23 Now make the former and the latter
quotation fit one nature. You will find it impossible, for existence in
the beginning, and descent from Abraham,—the making of all
things, and derivation from a created forefather, are
inconsistent.

Eran.—By thus arguing you divide the only begotten son into two
Persons.

Orth.—One Son of God I both know and adore, the Lord Jesus
Christ; but I have been taught the difference between His Godhead and
his manhood. You, however, who say that there is only one nature after
the union, do you make this agree with the introductions of the
Evangelists.

Eran.—You appear to assume the proposition to be hard, nay
impossible. Be it, I beg, short and easy;—only solve our
question.

Orth.—Both qualities are proper to the Lord
Christ,—existence from the beginning, and generation, according
to the flesh, from Abraham and David.

Eran.—You laid down the law that after the union it is not right
to speak of one nature. Take heed lest in mentioning the flesh you
transgress your own law.

Orth.—Even without mentioning the flesh it is quite easy to
explain the point in question, for I am applying both to the Saviour
Christ.

Eran.—I too assert that both these qualities belong to the Lord
Christ.

Orth.—Yes; but you do so in contemplation of two natures in Him,
and applying to each its own properties. But if the Christ is one
nature, how is it possible to attribute to it properties which are
inconsistent with one another? For to have derived origin from Abraham
and David, and still more to have been born many generations after
David, is inconsistent with existence in the beginning. Again to have
sprung from created beings is inconsistent with being Creator of all
things; to have had human fathers with existence derived from God. In
short the new is inconsistent with the eternal.

Let us also look at the matter
in this way. Do we say that the divine Word is Creator of the
Universe?

Eran.—So we have learnt to believe from the divine
Scriptures.

Orth.—And how many days after the creation of heaven and earth
are we told that Adam was formed?

Eran.—On the sixth day.

Orth.—And from Adam to Abraham how many generations went
by?

Eran.—I think twenty.

Orth.—And from Abraham to Christ our Saviour how many generations
are reckoned by the Evangelist Matthew.

Orth.—If then the Lord Christ is one nature how can He be Creator
of all things visible and invisible and, at the same time, after so
many generations, have been formed by the Holy Ghost in a
virgin’s womb? And how could He be at one and the same time
Creator of Adam and Son of Adam’s descendants?

Eran.—I have already said that both these properties are
appropriate to Him as God made flesh, for I recognise one nature made
flesh of the Word.

Orth.—Nor yet, my good sir, do we say that two natures of the
divine Word were made flesh, for we know that the nature of the divine
Word is one, but we have been taught that the flesh of which He availed
Himself when He was incarnate is of another nature, and here I think
that you too agree with me. Tell me now; after what manner do you say
that the making flesh took place?

Eran.—I know not the manner, but I believe that He was made
flesh.

Orth.—You make a pretext of your ignorance unfairly, and after
the fashion of the Pharisees. For they when they beheld the force of
the Lord’s enquiry, and suspecting that they were on the point of
conviction, uttered their reply “We do not know.”12481248Matt. xxi. 27. A.V. “We
cannot tell.” But I proclaim quite openly that the
divine incarnation is without change. For if by any variation or change
He was made flesh, then after the change all that is divine in His
names and in His deeds is quite inappropriate to Him.

Orth.—The nature of God the Word made flesh is different from
that of the flesh, by assumption of which the nature of the divine Word
was made flesh and became man.

Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Was He then changed into flesh?

Eran.—Certainly not.

Orth.—If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking
flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to
Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures
were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold
thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while
the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only
begotten—the Lord Christ—the other sets forth His human
qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time
calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He
gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth;12491249Luke ii. 51 at another He rebukes her as her Lord.12501250John ii. 4 At one time He finds no fault with them that
style Him Son of David; at another He teaches the ignorant that He is
not only David’s Son but also David’s Lord.12511251Matt. xxii.
42 He calls Nazareth and Capernaum His
country,12521252Mark vi. 1 and again He exclaims “Before
Abraham was I am.”12531253John viii. 58 You will find
the divine Scripture full of similar passages, and they all point not
to one nature but to two.

Eran.—He who contemplates two natures in the Christ divides the
one only begotten into two sons.

Orth.—Yes; and he who says Paul is made up of soul and body makes
two Pauls out of one.

Eran.—The analogy does not hold good.

Orth.—I know it does not,12541254 This, it will be remembered is the analogy employed in the
“Quicunque vult.” for here the
union is a natural union of parts that are coæval, created, and
fellow slaves, but in the case of the Lord Christ all is of good will,
of love to man, and of grace. Here too, though the union is natural,
the proper qualities of the natures remain unimpaired.

Eran.—If the proper qualities of the natures remain distinct, how
does the soul together with the body crave for food?

Orth.—The soul does not crave for food. How could it when it is
immortal? But the body, which derives its vital force from the soul,
feels its need, and desires to receive what is lacking. So after toil
it longs for rest, after waking for sleep, and so with the rest of its
desires. So forthwith after its dissolution, since it has no longer its
vital energy, it does not even crave for what is lacking, and, ceasing
to receive it, it undergoes corruption.

Eran.—You see that to thirst and to hunger and similar appetites
belong to the soul.

Orth.—Did these belong to the soul it would suffer hunger and
thirst, and the similar wants, even after its release from the
body.

Eran.—What then do you say to be proper to the soul?12551255 All
through the argument there seems to be some confusion between the two
senses of ψυχή as denoting the
immortal and the animal part of man, and so between the ψυχικόν
and the πνευματικόν. According to the Pauline psychology, (cf. in 1 Cor.
15)
the immortal and invisible could not be said to be proper to the
σῶμα
ψυχικόν.
This “natural body” is a body of death (Rom. vii. 24) and requires to
be redeemed (Rom. viii. 23) and changed into the
“house which is from heaven.” (2 Cor. v. 2.) Something of
the same confusion attaches to the common use of the word
“soul” to which we find the language of Holy Scripture
frequently accommodated. On the popular language of the dichotomy and
the more exact trichotomy of 1 Thess. v.
23 a
note of Bp. Ellicott on that passage may well be consulted.

Eran.—As then in this case we make no distinction, but call the
same man both reasonable and mortal, so also should we do in the case
of the Christ, and apply to Him both the divine and the
human.

Orth.—This is our argument, although you do not accurately
express it. For look you. When we are pursuing the argument about the
human soul, do we only mention what is appropriate to its energy and
nature?

Eran.—This only.

Orth.—And when our discussion is about the body, do we not only
recall what is appropriate to it?

Eran.—Quite so.

Orth.—But, when our discourse touches the whole being, then we
have no difficulty in adducing both sets of qualities, for the
195properties both of
the body and of the soul are applicable to man.

Eran.—Unquestionably.

Orth.—Well; just in this way should we speak of the Christ, and,
when arguing about His natures, give to each its own, and recognise
some as belonging to the Godhead, and some as to the manhood. But when
we are discussing the Person we must then make what is proper to the
natures common, and apply both sets of qualities to the Saviour, and
call the same Being both God and Man, both Son of God and Son of
Man—both David’s Son and David’s Lord, both Seed of
Abraham and Creator of Abraham, and so on.

Eran.—That the person of the Christ is one, and that both the
divine and the human are attributable to Him, you have quite rightly
said, and I accept this definition of the Faith; but your real
position, that in discussing the natures we must give to each its own
properties, seems to me to dissolve the union. It is for this reason
that I object to accept these and similar arguments.

Orth.—Yet when we were enquiring about soul and body you thought
the distinction of these terms admirable, and forthwith gave it your
approbation. Why then do you refuse to receive the same rule in the
case of the Godhead and manhood of the Lord Christ? Do you go so far as
to object to comparing the Godhead and the manhood of the Christ to
soul and body? So, while you grant an unconfounded union to soul and
body, do you venture to say that the Godhead and manhood of the Christ
have undergone commixture and confusion?

Eran.—I hold the Godhead of the Christ aye, and His flesh too, to
be infinitely higher in honour than soul and body; but after the union
I do assert one nature.

Orth.—But now is it not impious and shocking, while maintaining
that a soul united to a body is in no way subject to confusion, to deny
to the Godhead of the Lord of the universe the power to maintain its
own nature unconfounded or to keep within its proper bounds the
humanity which He assumed? Is it not, I say, impious to mix the
distinct, and to commingle the separate? The idea of one nature gives
ground for suspicion of this confusion.

Eran.—I am equally anxious to avoid the term confusion, but I
shrink from asserting two natures lest I fall into a dualism of
sons.

Orth.—I am equally anxious to escape either horn of the dilemma,
both the impious confusion and the impious distinction; for to me it is
alike an unhallowed thought to split the one Son in two and to gainsay
the duality of the natures. But now in truth’s name tell me. Were
one of the faction of Arius or Eunomius to endeavour, while disputing
with you, to belittle the Son, and to describe Him as less than and
inferior to the Father, by the help of all their familiar arguments and
citations from the divine Scripture of the text “Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from me”12571257Matt. xxvi.
39
and that other, “Now is my soul troubled”12581258John xii. 27 and other like passages, how would you
dispose of his objections? How could you show that the Son is in no way
diminished in dignity by these expressions and is not of another
substance, but begotten of the substance of the Father?

Eran.—I should say that the divine Scripture uses some terms
according to the theology and some according to the œconomy, and
that it is wrong to apply what belongs to the œconomy to what
belongs to the theology.12591259 Consult note on page 72.

Orth.—But your opponent would retort that even in the Old
Testament the divine Scripture says many things œconomically, as
for instance, “Adam heard the voice of the Lord God
walking,”12601260Gen. iii. 8 and “I will
go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the
cry of it which has come to me; and if not I will know,”12611261Gen. xviii.
21 and again, “Now I know that thou
fearest God”12621262Gen. xxii. 12 and the
like.

Eran.—I might answer to this that there is a great distinction
between the œconomies. In the Old Testament there is an
œconomy of words; in the New Testament of deeds.

Orth.—Then your opponent would ask of what deeds?

Eran.—He shall straightway hear of the deeds of the making flesh.
For the Son of God on being made man both in word and deed at one time
exhibits the flesh, at another the Godhead: as of course, in the
passage quoted, He shews the weakness of the flesh and of the soul, the
sense namely of fear.

Orth.—But if he were to go on to say, “But he did not take
a soul but only a body; for the Godhead instead of a soul being united
to the body performed all the functions of the soul,” with what
arguments could you meet his objections?

Eran.—I could bring proofs from the divine Scripture shewing how
God the Word took not only flesh but also soul.

Orth.—And what proofs of this shall we find in
Scripture?

196Eran.—Have you not heard
the Lord saying “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to
take it again.…I lay it down of myself that I might take it
again.”12631263John x. 18,
17 And again,
“Now is my soul troubled.”12641264John xii. 27
And again, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto
death,”12651265Matt. xxvi.
38 and again
David’s words as interpreted by Peter “His soul was not
left in hell neither did His flesh see corruption.”12661266Psalm xvi. 10 and Acts ii.
31 These and similar passages clearly point
out that God the Word assumed not only a body but also a
soul.

Orth.—You have quoted this testimony most appositely and
properly, but your opponent might reply that even before the
incarnation God said to the Jews, “Fasting and holy day and
feasts my soul hateth.”12671267Isaiah i. 13,
14.
Sept. Then he might
go on to argue that as in the Old Testament He mentioned a soul, though
He had not a soul, so He does in the New.

If then after the incarnation we
are forbidden to understand soul to mean soul, it is equally forbidden
to hold body to mean body. Thus the great mystery of the œconomy
will be found to be mere imagination; and we shall in no way differ
from Marcion, Valentinus and Manes, the inventors of all these
figments.

Orth.—But if a follower of Apollinarius were suddenly to
intervene in our discussion and were to ask “Most excellent Sir;
what kind of soul do you say that Christ assumed?” what would you
answer?

Eran.—I should first of all say that I know only one soul of man;
then I should answer, “But if you reckon two souls, the one
reasonable and the other without reason, I say that the soul assumed
was the reasonable. Yours it seems is the unreasonable, inasmuch as you
think that our salvation was incomplete.”

Orth.—But suppose he were to ask for proof of what you
say?

Eran.—I could very easily give it. I shall quote the oracles of
the Evangelists “The Child Jesus grew and waxed strong in spirit
and the grace of God was upon him”12721272Luke ii. 40 and again “Jesus increased in
wisdom and in stature and in favour with God and men.”12731273Luke ii. 52 I should say that these have nothing to
do with Godhead for the body increased in stature, and in wisdom the
soul—not that which is without reason, but the reasonable. God
the Word then took on Him a reasonable soul.

Orth.—Good Sir, you have bravely broken through the three fold
phalanx of your foes; but that union, and the famous commixture and
confusion, not in two ways only but in three, you have scattered and
undone; and not only have you pointed out the distinction between
Godhead and manhood, but you have in two ways distinguished the manhood
by pointing out that the soul is one thing and the body another, so
that no longer two, according to our argument, but three natures of our
Saviour Jesus Christ may be understood.

Eran.—Yes; for did not you say that there is another substance of
the soul besides the nature of the body?

Orth.—Yes.

Eran.—How then does the argument seem absurd to you?

Orth.—Because while you object to two, you have admitted three
natures.

Eran.—The contest with our antagonists compels us to this, for
how could any one in any other way argue against those who deny the
assumption of the flesh, or of the soul, or of the mind, but by
adducing proofs on these points from the divine Scripture? And how
could any one confute them who in their readiness strive to belittle
the Godhead of the only Begotten but by pointing out that the divine
Scripture speaks sometimes theologically and sometimes
œconomically.

Orth.—What you now say is true. It is what I, nay what all say,
who keep whole the apostolic rule. You yourself have become a supporter
of our doctrines.

Eran.—How do I support yours, while I refuse to acknowledge two
sons?

Orth.—When did you ever hear of our affirming two
sons?

Eran.—He who asserts two natures asserts two sons.

Orth.—Then you assert three sons, for you have spoken of three
natures.

Eran.—In no other way was it possible to meet the argument of my
opponents.

Orth.—Hear this same thing from us too; for both you and I
confront the same antagonists.

Eran.—But I do not assert two natures after the union.

Orth.—And yet after many generations 197of the union a moment ago you
used the same words. Explain to us however in what sense you assert one
nature after the union. Do you mean one nature derived from both or
that one nature remains after the destruction of the other?

Eran.—I maintain that the Godhead remains and that the manhood
was swallowed up by it.12741274καταποθῆναι
i.e., was absorbed and made to disappear. Contrast the
adsumptione Humanitatis in Deum (or "in Deo,” as
the older mss. read) of the Athanasian
Creed.

Orth.—Fables of the Gentiles, all this, and follies of the
Manichees. I am ashamed so much as to mention such things. The Greeks
had their gods’ swallowings12751275 The allusion is to the fable of Saturn devouring his children at
their birth. and the
Manichees wrote of the daughter of light. But we reject such teaching
as being as absurd as it is impious, for how could a nature absolute
and uncompounded, comprehending the universe, unapproachable and
infinite, have absorbed the nature which it assumed?

Eran.—Like the sea receiving a drop of honey, for straightway the
drop, as it mingles with the ocean’s water,
disappears.

Orth.—The sea and the drop are different in quantity, though
alike in quality; the one is greatest, the other is least; the one is
sweet and the other is bitter; but in all other respects you will find
a very close relationship. The nature of both is moist, liquid, and
fluid. Both are created. Both are lifeless yet each alike is called a
body. There is nothing then absurd in these cognate natures undergoing
commixture, and in the one being made to disappear by the other. In the
case before us on the contrary the difference is infinite, and so great
that no figure of the reality can be found. I will however endeavour to
point out to you several instances of substances which are mixed
without being confounded, and remain unimpaired.

Eran.—Who in the world ever heard of an unmixed
mixture?

Orth.—I shall endeavour to make you admit this.

Eran.—Should what you are about to advance prove true we will not
oppose the truth.

Orth.—Answer then, dissenting or assenting as the argument may
seem good to you.

Eran.—I will answer.

Orth.—Does the light at its rising seem to you to fill all the
atmosphere except where men shut up in caverns might remain bereft of
it?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—And does all the light seem to you to be diffused through
all the atmosphere?

Eran.—I am with you so far.

Orth.—And is not the mixture diffused through all that is subject
to it?

Eran.—Certainly.

Orth.—But, now, this illuminated atmosphere, do we not see it as
light and call it light?

Eran.—Quite so.

Orth.—And yet when the light is present we sometimes are aware of
moisture and aridity; frequently of heat and cold.

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—And after the departure of the light the atmosphere
afterwards remains alone by itself.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—Consider this example too. When iron is brought in contact
with fire it is fired.

Eran.—Certainly.

Orth.—And the fire is diffused through its whole
substance?

Eran.—Well?

Orth.—How, then, does not the complete union, and the mixture
universally diffused, change the iron’s nature?

Eran.—But it changes it altogether. It is now reckoned no longer
as iron, but as fire, and indeed it has the active properties of
fire.

Orth.—But does not the smith call it iron, and put it on the
anvil and smite it with his hammer?

Eran.—Unquestionably.

Orth.—Then the nature of the iron was not damaged by contact with
the fire. If then, in natural bodies, instances may be found of an
unconfounded mixture, it is sheer folly in the case of the nature which
knows neither corruption nor change to entertain the idea of confusion
and destruction of the assumed nature, and all the more so when this
nature was assumed to bring blessing on the race.

Eran.—What I assert is not the destruction of the assumed nature,
but its change into the substance of Godhead.

Orth.—Then the human race is no longer limited as
heretofore?

Eran.—No.

Orth.—When did it undergo this change?

Eran.—After the complete union.

Orth.—And what date do you assign to this?

Eran.—I have said again and again, that of the
conception.

198Orth.—Yet after the
conception He was an unborn babe in the womb; after His birth. He was a
babe12761276Luke ii. 12 and 16 and was called a babe, and was
worshipped by shepherds, and in like manner became a boy, and was so
called by the angel.12771277Matt. ii. 13 Do you
acknowledge all this? or do you think I am inventing fables?

Eran.—This is taught in the history of the divine gospels, and
cannot be gainsaid.

Orth.—Now let us investigate what follows. We acknowledge, do we
not, that the Lord was circumcised?

Eran.—Yes.

Orth.—Of what was there a circumcision? Of flesh or
Godhead?

Eran.—Of the flesh.

Orth.—Of what was then the growth and increase in wisdom and
stature?

Eran.—This, of course, is not applicable to Godhead.

Orth.—Nor hunger and thirst?

Eran.—No.

Orth.—Nor walking about, and being weary, and falling
asleep?

Eran.—No.

Orth.—If then the union took place at the conception, and all
these things came to pass after the conception and the birth, then,
after the union, the manhood did not lose its own nature.

Eran.—I have not stated my meaning exactly. It was after the
resurrection from the dead that the flesh underwent the change into
Godhead.

Orth.—Then, after the resurrection, nothing of all that indicates
its nature remained in it?

Eran.—If it remained, the divine change did not take
place.

Orth.—How then was it that He shewed His hands and His feet to
the disciples who disbelieved?

Eran.—Just as He came in when the doors were shut.

Orth.—But He came in when the doors were shut just as He came out
from the womb, though the virgin’s bolts and bars were undrawn,
and just as He walked upon the sea. Then according to your argument not
even yet had the change of nature taken place?

Eran.—The Lord shewed His hands to the Apostles in the same way
as He wrestled with Jacob.

Orth.—No; the Lord does not allow us to understand it in this
sense. The disciples thought they saw a spirit, but the Lord dispelled
this idea, and shewed the nature of the flesh, for He said “Why
are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my
hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”12781278Luke xxiv. 38,
39 And observe the exactness of the
language. He does not say “is not flesh and bones,” but
“has not flesh and bones,” in order to point out that the
nature of the possessor and the nature of that which is possessed are
distinct and separate. Just in the same way that which took and that
which was taken are separate and distinct, and the Christ is beheld
made one of both. Thus the part possessing is entirely different from
the part possessed; and yet does not divide into two persons Him who is
an object of thought in them. The Lord, indeed, while the disciples
were still in doubt, asked for food and took and ate it, not consuming
the food only in appearance, nor satisfying to the need of the
body.

Eran.—But one of these alternatives must be accepted; either He
partook because He needed, or else, needing not, He seemed to eat, and
did not really partake of food.

Orth.—His body now become immortal required no food. Of them that
rise the Lord says: “they neither marry nor are given in marriage
but are as Angels.”12791279Mark xii. 25 The apostles
however bear witness that He partook of the food, for the blessed Luke
in the preface to the Acts says “being assembled together with
the apostles the Lord commanded them that they should not depart from
Jerusalem”12801280Acts i. 4 and the very
divine Peter says more distinctly: “Who did eat and drink with
Him after He rose from the dead.”12811281Acts x. 41 For since eating is proper to them that
live this present life, of necessity the Lord by means of eating and
drinking proved the resurrection of the flesh to them that did not
acknowledge it to be real. This same course He pursued in the case of
Lazarus and of Jairus’ daughter. For when He had raised up the
latter He ordered that something should be given her to eat12821282Mark v. 43 and He made Lazarus sit with Him at the
table12831283John xii. 21 and so shewed the reality of the
rising again.

Eran.—If we grant that the Lord really ate, let us grant that
after the resurrection all men partake of food.

Orth.—What was done by the Saviour through a certain œconomy
is not a rule and law of nature. This follows from the fact that He did
other things by œconomy which shall by no means be the lot of them
that live again.

Orth.—Will not the bodies of them that rise become incorruptible
and immortal?

Eran.—So the divine Paul has taught us. “It is sown”
he says “in corruption; it is raised in incorruption; it is sown
in dishonour; it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness; it is
raised in power; it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual
body.”128412841 Cor. xv. 42, 43,
44

Orth.—But the Lord, who raises the bodies of all men, unmaimed
and unmarred (for lameness of limb and blindness of eye are unknown
among them that are risen),12851285 Contrast Plato Gorgias §169 κατεαγότα
τε εἴ του ἦν
μέλη ἢ
διεστραμμένα
ζῶντος καὶ
τεθνεῶτος
ταῦτα
ἔνδηλα, and
Virgil Æn. vi. 494. “Atque hic Priamiden
laniatum corpore totoDeiphobum vidit
lacerum crudeliter ora.” left in His own
body the prints of the nails, and the wound in His side, whereof are
witnesses both the Lord Himself and the hand of Thomas.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—If then after the resurrection the Lord both partook of
food, and shewed His hands and His feet to His disciples, and in them
the prints of the nails, and His side with the mark of the wound in it,
and said to them, “Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh
and bones as ye see me have”12861286Luke xxiv. 39 it
follows that after His resurrection the nature of His body was
preserved and was not changed into another substance.

Eran.—Then after the resurrection it is mortal and subject to
suffering?

Orth.—By no means; it is incorruptible, impassible, and
immortal.

Eran.—If it is incorruptible, impassible, and immortal, it has
been changed into another nature.

Orth.—Therefore the bodies of all men will be changed into
another substance, for all will be incorruptible and immortal. Or have
you not heard the words of the Apostle, “For this corruptible
must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality”?128712871 Cor. xv. 53

Eran.—I have heard.

Orth.—Therefore the nature remains, but its corruption is changed
into incorruption, and its mortal into immortality. But let us look at
the matter in this way; we call a body that is sick and a body that is
whole, in the same way, a body.

Eran.—Unquestionably.

Orth.—Wherefore?

Eran.—Since both partake of the same substance.

Orth.—Yet we see in them a very great difference, for the one is
whole, perfect, and unhurt; the other has either lost an eye, or has a
broken leg, or has undergone some other suffering.

Eran.—But to the same nature belong both health and
sickness.

Orth.—So the body is called substance; disease and health are
called accident.

Eran.—Of course. For these things are accidents of the body, and
again cease to be so.

Orth.—In the same way corruption and death must be called
accidents, and not substances, for they too are accidents and cease to
be so.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—So the body of the Lord rose incorruptible, impassible, and
immortal, and is worshipped by the powers of heaven, and is yet a body
having its former limitation.

Eran.—In these points you seem to say sooth, but after its
assumption into heaven I do not think that you will deny that it was
changed into the nature of Godhead.

Orth.—I would not so say persuaded only by human arguments, for I
am not so rash as to say anything concerning which divine Scripture is
silent. But I have heard the divine Paul exclaiming “God hath
appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness
by that man whom He hath ordained whereof He hath given assurance unto
all men in that He hath raised Him from the dead,”12881288Acts xvii. 31 and I have learnt from the holy
Angels that He will come in like manner as the disciples saw Him going
into heaven.12891289Acts i. 11 Now they saw His nature not
unlimited. For I have heard the words of the Lord, “Ye shall see
the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven,”12901290Matt. xxvi.
64 and I acknowledge that what is seen of men
is limited, for the unlimited nature is invisible. Furthermore to sit
upon a throne of glory and to set the lambs upon the right and the kids
upon the left12911291Matt. xxv.
31–33 indicates
limitation.

Eran.—Then He was not unlimited even before the incarnation, for
the prophet saw Him surrounded by the Seraphim.12921292Isaiah vi. 2

Orth.—The prophet did not see the substance of God, but a certain
appearance accommodated to his capacity. After the resurrection,
however, all the world will see the very visible nature of the
judge.

Eran.—You promised that you would adduce no argument without
evidence, but you are introducing arguments adapted to us.

Orth.—I have learnt these things from the divine Scripture. I
have heard the words of the prophet Zechariah “They shall look on
Him whom they pierced,”12931293Zech. xii. 10200and how shall the event
follow the prophecy unless the crucifiers recognise the nature which
they crucified? And I have heard the cry of the victorious martyr
Stephen, “Behold I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man
standing on the right hand of God,”12941294Acts vii. 56
and he saw the visible, not the invisible nature.

Eran.—These things are thus written, but I do not think that you
will be able to show that the body, after the ascension into heaven, is
called body by the inspired writers.

Orth.—What has been already said indicates the body perfectly
plainly; for what is seen is a body; but I will nevertheless point out
to you that even after the assumption the body of the Lord is called a
body. Hear the teaching of the Apostle, “For our conversation is
in Heaven from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus, who
shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his
glorious body.”12951295Phil. iii. 20,
21.
Observe omission of “Christ.” It was not
changed into another nature, but remained a body, full however of
divine glory, and sending forth beams of light. The bodies of the
saints shall be fashioned like unto it. But if it was changed into
another nature, their bodies will be likewise changed, for they shall
be fashioned like unto it. But if the bodies of the saints preserve the
character of their nature, then also the body of the Lord in like
manner keeps its own nature unchanged.

Eran.—Then will the bodies of the saints be equal with the body
of the Lord?

Orth.—In its incorruption and its immortality they too will
share. Moreover in its glory they will participate, as says the
Apostle, “If so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also
glorified together.”12961296Rom. viii. 17 It is in
quantity that the vast difference may be found, a difference as great
as between sun and stars, or rather between master and slaves, and that
which gives and that which receives light. Yet has He given a share of
His own name to His servants and as He is Light, calls His saints
light, for “Ye,” He says, “are the Light of the
world,”12971297Matt. v. 14 and being named
servants and being named “Sun of Righteousness”12981298Malachi iv. 2 He says of his servants “Then
shall the righteous shine forth as the Sun.”12991299Matt. xiii.
43 It is therefore according to quality, not
according to quantity, that the bodies of the saints shall be fashioned
like unto the body of the Lord. Now I have shewn you plainly what you
bade me. Further, if you please, let us look at the matter in yet
another way.

Eran.—One ought “to stir every stone,” as the proverb
says,13001300 Probably the λίθος in the
stone on the Draught Board. So πάντα
κινεὶν
λίθον is to make
every effort in the game. to get at the truth; above all when it is a
question of divine doctrines.

Orth.—Tell me now; the mystic symbols which are offered to God by
them who perform priestly rites, of what are they symbols?

Eran.—Of the body and blood of the Lord.

Orth.—Of the real body or not?

Eran.—The real.

Orth.—Good. For there must be the archetype of the image. So
painters imitate nature and paint the images of visible
objects.

Eran.—True.

Orth.—If, then, the divine mysteries are antitypes of the real
body,13011301τοῦ ὄντως
σώματως
ἀντίτυπά
ἐστι τὰ θεῖα
μυστήρια. The view of Orthodoxus, it will be seen, is not that of the
Roman confession. cf. note on p. 206. therefore even now the body of the Lord is
a body, not changed into nature of Godhead, but filled with divine
glory.

Eran.—You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine
mysteries for from it I shall be able to show you the change of the
Lord’s body into another nature. Answer now to my
questions.

Orth.—I will answer.

Eran.—What do you call the gift which is offered before the
priestly invocation?

Orth.—It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are
present.

Eran.—Let your answer be put enigmatically.

Orth.—Food of grain of such a sort.

Eran.—And how name we the other symbol?

Orth.—This name too is common, signifying species of
drink.

Eran.—And after the consecration how do you name
these?

Orth.—Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.

Eran.—And do you believe that you partake of Christ’s body
and blood?

Orth.—I do.

Eran.—As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood
are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation
are changed and become another thing; so the Lord’s body after
the assumption is changed into the divine substance.

Orth.—You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even
after the consecration the mystic symbols are not de201prived of their own nature;
they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible
and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they
are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped13021302προσκυνεῖται as being what they are believed to be.
Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the
likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body
preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the
substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become
immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on
the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the
natural body of the Lord.

Eran.—Yes; and the mystic symbol changes its former appellation;
it is no longer called by the name it went by before, but is styled
body. So must the reality be called God, and not body.

Orth.—You seem to me to be ignorant—for He is called not
only body but even bread of life. So the Lord Himself used this name13031303John vi. 51 and that very body we call divine body,
and giver of life, and of the Master and of the Lord, teaching that it
is not common to every man but belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ Who is
God and Man. “For Jesus Christ” is “the same
yesterday, to-day, and forever.”13041304Heb. xiii. 8

Eran.—You have said a great deal about this, but I follow the
saints who have shone of old in the Church; show me then, if you can,
these in their writings dividing the natures after the
union.

Orth.—I will read you their works, and I am sure you will be
astonished at the countless mentions of the distinction which in their
struggle against impious heretics they have inserted in their writings.
Hear now those whose testimony I have already adduced speaking openly
and distinctly on these points.

Testimony of the holy Ignatius,
bishop of Antioch, and martyr:—

From the Epistle to the
Smyrnæans:13051305 Ad
Smyr. III. “I
acknowledge and believe Him after His resurrection to be existent in
the flesh: and when He came to them that were with Peter He said to
them ‘Take; handle me and see, for I am not a bodiless
dæmon.’13061306 The
quotation is not from the canonical gospels. Eusebius (iii. 36) says he
does not know from what source it comes. Jerome states it to be derived
from the gospel lately translated by him, the gospel according to the
Hebrews (Vir. Ill. 2). Origen ascribes the words to the
“Doctrina Petri.” (de Princ. Præf. 8) Bp.
Lightfoot, by whom the matter is fully discussed, (Ap. Fath. pt. II.
Vol. ii. p. 295) thinks that either Jerome, more suo, was
forgetful, or had a different recension of the gospel to the Hebrews
from that used by Origen and Eusebius. Ignatius may be quoting a verbal
tradition. Bp. Lightfoot further points out that Origen (l. c.)
supposes the author of the Doctrina Petri to use this
epithet ἀσώαατον not in its philosophical sense (= incorporeal) but as
meaning composed of some subtle substance and without a gross body like
man. Further Origen (c. Cels. V. 5) warns us that to Christians the
word dæmon has a special connotation, in reference to the powers
that deceive and distract men. And straightway
they took hold of him and believed.”

Of the same from the same
epistle:—

“And after His
Resurrection He ate with them, and drank with them, as being of the
flesh, although He was spiritually one with the
Father.”

Testimony of Irenæus,
the ancient bishop of Lyons;—

From the third Book of his work
“Against Heresies.” (Chap. XX.)

“As we have said before,
He united man to God. For had not a man vanquished man’s
adversary, the enemy would not have been vanquished aright; and again,
had not God granted the boon of salvation we should not have possessed
it in security. And had not man been united to God, he could not have
shared in the incorruption. For it behoved the mediator of God and men,
by means of His close kinship to either, to bring them both into
friendship and unanimity, and to set man close to God and to make God
known to men.”

Of the same from the third book
of the same treatise (Chapter XVIII):—

“So again in his Epistle
he says ‘Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of
God,’130713071 John v. 1 recognising one and the same Jesus
Christ to whom the gates of heaven were opened, on account of His
assumption in the flesh. Who in the same flesh in which He also
suffered shall come revealing the glory of the
Father.”

Of the same from the fourth book
(Chapter VII):—

“As Isaiah saith ‘He
shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root. Israel shall blossom
and bud and fill the face of the world with fruit.’13081308Isaiah xxvii.
6 So his fruit being scattered through the
whole world, they who erst brought forth good fruit (for of them was
produced the Christ in the flesh and the apostles) were abandoned and
removed. And now they are no longer fit for bringing forth
fruit.”

Of the same from the same book
(Chapter LIX):—

“And he judges also them
of Ebion.13091309 Vide note on page 38. How can they be saved unless it was
God who wrought their salvation on earth, or how shall man come to God
unless God came to man?”

Of the same from the same book
(Chapter LXIV):—

202“They who preach that Emmanuel was of the Virgin set forth
the union of God the Word with His creature.”

Of the same from the same
treatise (Book V. Chap. I.):—

“Now these things came to
pass not in seeming but in essential truth, for if He appeared to be
man though He was not man then the Spirit of God did not continue to be
what in truth It is; for the Spirit is invisible; nor was there any
truth in Him, for He was not what He appeared to be. And we have said
before that Abraham and the rest of the prophets beheld Him in prophecy
prophesying what was destined to come to pass in actual sight. If then
now too He appeared to be of such a character, though in reality He was
not what He appeared, then a kind of prophetic vision would have been
given to men, and we must still look for yet another advent in which He
will really be what He is now seen to be in prophecy. Now we have
demonstrated that there is no difference between the statements that He
only appeared in seeming and that He took nothing from Mary, for He did
not really even possess flesh and blood whereby He redeemed us, unless
He renewed in Himself the old creation of Adam. The sect of Valentinus
are therefore vain in teaching thus that they may cast out the life of
the flesh.”

Testimony of the holy
Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, from his work on the distribution of the
talents:13101310 The
only fragment of this work.—

“Any one might say that
these and those who uphold otherwise are neighbours, erring as they do
in the same manner, for even they either confess that the Christ
appeared in life as mere man, denying the talent of His Godhead, or
else acknowledging Him as God, on the other hand they deny the man,
representing that He deluded the sight of them that beheld Him by
unreal appearances; and that He wore manhood not as a Man but was
rather a mere imaginary semblance, as Marcion and Valentinus and the
Gnostics teach, wrenching away the Word from the flesh, and rejecting
the one talent, the incarnation.”

Of the same from his letter to a
certain Queen:13111311 Several fragments of this letter will be found in Dialogue
III.—

“He calls Him ‘the
first fruits of them that sleep,’ as being ‘the first born
from the dead,’13121312Coloss. i. 18 and He, after
His resurrection, wishing to show that that which was risen was the
same as that which had undergone death, when the disciples were
doubting, called Thomas to Him, and said, ‘Come hither handle me
and see for a spirit hath not flesh and blood as ye see me
have.’”13131313 Vide John xx. 27 and
Luke xxiv. 39. The quotation confuses the words of the resurrection day
and of the week after.

Of the same from his discourse
on Elkanah and Hannah:—

“Wherefore three seasons
of the year typified the Saviour Himself that He might fulfil the
mysteries predicted about Him. In the Passover, that He might shew
Himself as the sheep doomed to be sacrificed and shew a true Passover
as says the Apostle, ‘Christ, God,131413141 Cor. v. 7. The addition
of ὁ Θεός has no
authority.
our Passover was sacrificed for us.’ At Pentecost that He might
announce the kingdom of heaven ascending Himself first into heaven and
offering to God man as a gift.”

Of the same from his work on the
great Psalm:13151315 Probably the cxixth
Ps.
It is doubtful whether the work forms part of a Commentary on the Pss.
or is quoted from a homily on this special Psalm.—

“He who drew from the
nethermost hell man first formed of the earth when lost and held fast
in bonds of death; He who came down from above and lifted up him that
was down; He who became Evangelist of the dead, ransomer of souls and
resurrection of them that were entombed; this was He who became
succourer of vanquished man in Himself, like man firstborn Word;
visiting the first formed Adam in the Virgin; the spiritual seeking the
earthy in the womb; the ever-living him who by disobedience died; the
heavenly calling the earthly to the world above, the highborn meaning
to make the slave free by His own obedience; He who turned to adamant
man crumbled into dust and made serpents’ meat; He who made man
hanging on a tree of wood Lord over him who had conquered Him and so by
a tree of wood is proved victorious.”

Of the same from the same
book:—

“They who do not now
recognise the Son of God in the flesh will one day recognise Him when
He comes as judge in glory, though now in an inglorious body suffering
wrong.”

Of the same from the same
book:—

“Moreover the apostles
when they had come to the sepulchre on the third day did not find the
body of Jesus, just as the children of Israel went up on the mountain,
and could not find the tomb of Moses.”

Of the same from his
interpretation of Psalm II.:—

“When He had come into the
world He 203was manifested as God and Man. His manhood is easy of perception
because He is ahungered and aweary, in toil He is athirst, in fear He
flees,13161316 The word φεύγειν is not used of the Saviour in the Gospel. Joseph was bidden
φεῦγε
εἰς
Αἴγυπτον. When our Lord was brought to the cliff overhanging
Nazareth διελθὼν διὰ
μέσου αὐτῶν
ἐπορεύετο in prayer He grieves; He falls
asleep upon a pillow, He prays that the cup of suffering may pass from
Him, being in an agony He sweats, He is strengthened by an angel,
betrayed by Judas, dishonoured by Caiaphas, set at nought by Herod,
scourged by Pilate, mocked by soldiers, nailed to a cross by Jews, He
commends His spirit to the Father with a cry, He leans His head as He
breathes His last, He is pierced in the side with a spear and rolled in
fine linen, is laid in a tomb, and on the third day He is raised by the
Father. No less plainly may His divinity be seen when He is worshipped
by angels, gazed on by shepherds, waited for by Simeon, testified to by
Anna, sought out by Magi, pointed out by a Star, at the wedding feast
makes water wine, rebukes the sea astir by force of winds, and on the
same sea walks, makes a man blind from birth see, raises Lazarus who
had been four days dead, works many and various wonders, remits sins
and gives power to His disciples.”

Of the same from his work on
Psalm XXIV.:—

“He comes to the heavenly
gates, angels travel with Him and the gates of the heavens are shut.
For He hath not yet ascended into heaven. Now first to the heavenly
powers flesh appears ascending. The Word then goes forth to the powers
from the angels that speed before the Lord and Saviour, ‘Lift the
Gates ye princes and be ye lift up ye everlasting doors and the King of
glory shall come in.’”13171317Ps. xxiv. Sept.

Testimony of the holy
Eustathius, bishop of Antioch and confessor.

From his work on The Titles of
the Psalms:—

“He predicted that He
would sit upon a holy throne, shewing that He has been set forth on the
same throne as the divine Spirit on account of the God that dwells in
Him continually.”

Of the same from his work upon
the Soul:—

“Before His passion in
each case He predicted His bodily death, saying that He would be
betrayed to the father of the High Priest, and announcing the trophy of
the Cross. And after the passion, when He had risen on the third day
from the dead, His disciples being in doubt as to His resurrection, He
appeared to them in His very body and confessed that He had complete
flesh and bones, submitting to their sight His wounded side and shewing
them the prints of the nails.”

“Paul did not say
‘conformed to the Son of God’ but ‘conformed to the
image of His Son’13191319Romans viii.
29 in order to
point out a distinction between the Son and His image, for the Son,
wearing the divine tokens of His Father’s Excellence, is an image
of His Father; for since like are generated of like, offspring appear
as very images of their parents, but the manhood which He wore is an
image of the Son, as images even of different colours are painted on
wax,13201320 The
original here is corrupt. some being wrought by hand and some by
nature and likeness. Moreover the very law of truth announces this, for
the bodiless spirit of wisdom is not conformed to bodily men, but the
express image13211321χαρακτήρ
cf. Heb. i. 3. I have used the
equivalent given in A.V. for the Greek word of the text meaning
literally stamp or impression, as on coin or seal, and so exact
representation. made man by the
spirit bearing the same number of members with all the rest, and clad
in similar form.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“That he speaks of the
body as conformed to those of men he teaches more clearly in his
Epistle to the Philippians, ‘our conversation’ he says
‘is in Heaven from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord
Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned
like unto His glorious body.’13221322Phil. iii. 20,
21 And if by
changing the form of the vile body of men He fashions it like unto His
own body, then the false teaching of our opponents is shewn to be in
every way worthless.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“But as being born of the
Virgin He is said to have been made man of the woman,13231323Gal. iv. 4 so He is described as being made under
the law because of His sometimes walking by the precepts of the law, as
for instance when His parents zealously urged His circumcision, when He
was a child eight days old, as relates the evangelist Luke, afterwards
‘they brought Him to present Him to the Lord,’
‘bringing the offerings of purification’ ‘to offer a
sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord a pair
of turtle doves or two young pigeons.’13241324Luke ii. 22,
24 As then the gifts of purification were
offered on 204His behalf according to the law, and He underwent circumcision on
the eighth day, the Apostle very properly writes that He was thus
brought under the law. Not indeed that the Word was subject to the law,
(as our calumnious opponents suppose) being Himself the law, nor did
God, who by one breath can cleanse and hallow all things, need
sacrifices of purification. But He took from the Virgin the members of
a man and became subject to the law and was purified according to the
rite of the firstborn, not because He submitted to this treatment from
any need on His part of such observance, but in order that He might
redeem from the slavery of the law them that were sold to the doom of
the curse.”

“We should not have been
redeemed from sin and the curse had not the flesh which the Word wore
been by nature that of man, for we should have had nothing in common
with that which was not our own; just so man would not have been made
God, had not the Word which was made flesh been by nature of the Father
and verily and properly His. And the combination is of this character
that to the natural God may be joined the natural man, and so his
salvation and deification be secure. Therefore let them that deny Him
to be naturally of the Father, and own Son of His substance, deny too
that He took very flesh of man from the Virgin Mary.”

Of the same from his Epistle to
Epictetus:—

“If on account of the
Saviour’s Body being, and being described in the Scriptures as
being, derived from Mary, and a human Body, they fancy that a
quaternity is substituted for a Trinity, as though some addition were
made by the body, they are quite wrong; they put the creature on a par
with the Creator, and suppose that the Godhead is capable of being
added to. They fail to see that the Word was not made flesh on account
of any addition to Godhead, but that the flesh may rise. Not for the
aggrandisement of the Word did He come forth from Mary, but that the
human race may be redeemed. How can they think that the body ransomed
and quickened by the Word can add anything in the way of Godhead to the
Word that quickened it?”

Of the same from the same
Epistle:—

“Let them be told that if
the Word had been a creature, the creature would not have assumed a
body to quicken it. For what help can creatures get from a creature
standing itself in need of salvation? But the Word, Himself Creator,
was made maker of created things, and therefore in the fulness of the
ages He attached the creature to Himself, that once more as a Creator
He might renew it, and might be able to create it
afresh.”

From the longer Discourse
“De Fide”:—

“This also we add
concerning the words ‘Sit thou on my right hand,’13261326Ps. cx. 1 that they are said of the Lord’s
body. For if ‘the Lord saith, do not I fill heaven and
earth,’13271327Jerem. xxiii.
24 as says
Jeremiah, and God contains all things, and is contained of none, on
what kind of throne does He sit? It is therefore the body to which He
says ‘Sit thou on my right hand,’ of which too the devil
with his wicked powers was foe, and Jews and Gentiles too. Through this
body too He was made and was called High Priest and Apostle through the
mystery whereof He gave to us, saying ‘This is my Body for
you’132813281 Cor. xi. 24 and ‘my Blood of the New
Testament’ (not of the Old), shed for you.”13291329Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark xiv.
24 Now Godhead hath neither body nor blood;
but the manhood which He bore of Mary was the cause of them, of whom
the Apostles said ‘Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among
you.’”13301330Acts ii. 22

Of the same from his book
against the Arians:—

“And when he says
‘Wherefore God hath also highly exalted Him and given Him a name
which is above every name’13311331Phil. ii. 9 he speaks
of the temple of the body, not of the Godhead, for the Most High is not
exalted, but the flesh of the Most High is exalted, and to the flesh of
the Most High He gave a name which is above every name. Nor did the
Word of God receive the designation of God as a favour, but His flesh
was held divine as well as Himself.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“And when he says
‘the Holy Ghost was not yet because that Jesus was not yet
glorified,’13321332John vii. 39 he says that
His flesh was not yet glorified, for the Lord of glory is not
glorified, but the flesh itself receives glory of the glory of the Lord
as it mounts with Him into Heaven; whence he says the spirit of
adoption was not yet among men, because the first fruits taken from men
had not yet ascended into heaven. Wherever 205then the Scripture says that
the Son received and was glorified, it speaks because of His manhood,
not His Godhead.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“So that He is very God
both before His being made man and after His being made mediator of God
and men, Jesus Christ united to the Father in spirit, and to us in
flesh, who mediated between God and men, and who is not only man but
also God.”

Testimony of the Holy Ambrosius,
bishop of Milan.

In his Exposition of the
Faith:—

“We confess that our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, was begotten before all
ages, without beginning, of the Father, and that in these last days the
same was made flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, assumed the manhood, in
its perfection, of a reasonable soul and body, of one substance with
the Father as touching His Godhead and of one substance with us as
touching His manhood. For union of two perfect natures hath been after
an ineffable manner. Wherefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Son, our
Lord Jesus Christ; knowing that being coeternal with His own Father as
touching His Godhead, by virtue of which also He is creator of all, He
deigned, after the assent of the Holy Virgin, when she said to the
angel ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according
to thy word’13331333Luke i. 38 to build
after an ineffable fashion a temple out of her for Himself, and to
unite this temple to Himself by her conception, not taking and uniting
with Himself a body coeternal with His own substance, and brought from
heaven, but of the matter of our substance, that is of the Virgin. God
the Word was not turned into flesh; His appearance was not unreal;
keeping ever His own substance immutably and invariably He took the
first fruits of our nature, and united them to Himself. God the Word
did not take His beginning from the Virgin, but being coeternal with
His own Father He of infinite kindness deigned to unite to Himself the
first fruits of our nature, undergoing no mixture but in either
substance appearing one and the same, as it is written ‘Destroy
this temple and in three days I will raise it up.’13341334John ii. 19 For the divine Christ, as touching my
substance which he took is destroyed, and the same Christ raises the
destroyed temple as touching the divine substance in which also He is
Creator of all things. Never at any time after the Union which He
deigned to make with Himself from the moment of the conception did He
depart from His own temple, nor indeed through His ineffable love for
mankind could depart.

“The same Christ is both
passible and impassible; as touching His manhood passible and as
touching His Godhead impassible. ‘Behold behold me, it is I, I
have undergone no change’—and when God the Word had raised
His own temple and in it had wrought out the resurrection and renewal
of our nature, He shewed this nature to His disciples and said
‘Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye
see me,’ not ‘be’ but ‘have.’13351335Luke xxiv. 39 So He says, referring to both the
possessor and the possessed in order that you may perceive that what
had taken place was not mixture, not change, not variation, but union.
On this account too He shewed the prints of the nails and the wound of
the spear and ate before His disciples to convince them by every means
that the resurrection of our nature had been renewed in Him; and
further because in accordance with the blessed substance of His Godhead
unchanged, impassible, immortal, He lived in need of nought, He by
concession permitted all that can be felt to be brought to His own
temple, and by His own power raised it up, and by means of His own
temple made perfect the renewal of our nature.

“Them therefore that
assert that the Christ was mere man, that God the Word was passible, or
changed into flesh, or that the body which He had was consubstantial,
or that He brought it from Heaven, or that it was an unreality; or
assert that God the Word being mortal needed to receive His
resurrection from the Father, or that the body which He assumed was
without a soul, or manhood without a mind, or that the two natures of
the Christ became one nature by confusion and commixture; them that
deny that our Lord Jesus Christ was two natures unconfounded, but one
person, as He is one Christ and one Son, all these the catholic and
apostolic Church condemns.”

“If then the flesh of all
was in Christ or hath been in Christ subject to wrongs, how can it be
held to be of one essence with the Godhead? For if the Word and the
flesh which derives its nature from earth are of one essence, then the
Word and the soul which He took in its perfection are of one essence,
for the Word is of one nature with God both according to the Word of
the Father, and the confession of the Son Himself in the words,
‘I and my Father are one.’13371337John x. 30206Thus the Father must be held
to be of the same substance with the body. Why any longer are ye wroth
with the Arians, who say that the Son is a creature of God, while you
assert yourselves that the Father is of one substance with His
creatures?”

Of the same from his letter to
the Emperor Gratianus:13381338 De Fide ii. Chap. 9.—

“Let us preserve a
distinction between Godhead and flesh. One Son of God speaks in both,
since in Him both natures exist. The same Christ speaks, yet not always
in the same but sometimes in a different manner. Observe how at one
time He expresses divine glory and at another human feeling. As God He
utters the things of God, since He is the Word; as man He speaks with
humility because He converses in my essence.”

“As to the passage where
we read that the Lord of glory was crucified,134013401 Cor. ii. 8
let us not suppose that He was crucified in His own glory. But since He
is both God and man, as touching His Godhead God, and as touching the
assumption of the flesh, a man, Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, is
said to have been crucified. For He partakes of either
nature—that is the human and the divine. In the nature of manhood
He underwent the passion in order that He who suffered might be said to
be without distinction both Lord of Glory and Son of Man. As it is
written ‘He that came down from Heaven.’”13411341John iii. 13

“Let then vain questions
about words be silent, as it is written, the kingdom of God is not in
‘enticing words’ but in ‘demonstration of the
spirit.’134313431 Cor. ii. 4 For there is
one Son of God who speaks in both ways, since both natures exist in
Him; but although He Himself speaks He does not speak always in the
same way; for you see in Him at one time God’s glory, at another
time man’s feeling. As God He utters divine things, being the
Word; as man He utters human things, since in this nature He
spoke.”

Of the same from his work on the
Incarnation of the Lord against the Apollinarians:13441344 De Incarn. Sac. 6.—

“But while we are
confuting these, another set spring up who assert the body of the
Christ and His godhead to be of one nature. What hell hath vomited
forth so terrible a blasphemy? Really Arians are more tolerable, whose
infidelity, on account of these men, is strengthened, so that with
greater opposition they deny Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be of one
substance, for they did at least endeavour to maintain the Godhead of
the Lord and His flesh to be of one nature.”

Of the same (from the same
chapter):—

“He has frequently told me
that he maintains the exposition of the Nicene Council, but in that
examination our Fathers laid down that the Word of God, not the flesh,
was of one substance with the Father, and they confessed that the Word
came from the substance of the Father but that the flesh is of the
Virgin. Why then do they hold out to us the name of the Nicene Council,
while in reality they are introducing innovations of which our
forefathers never entertained the thought?”

Of the same against
Apollinarius:13451345 De
incarn. sacram. Chap. 4.—

“Refuse thou to allow that
the body is by nature on a par with the Godhead. Even though thou
believe the body of the Christ to be real and bring it to the altar for
transformation,13461346“Offeras transfigurandum altaribus.” The Benedictine Editors, by a curious anachronism, see here
a reference to transubstantiation. But μεταποίησις, the word translated “transformation” implies
no more than the being made to undergo a change, which may be a change
in dignity without involving a change of substance. cf. pp. 200 and
201, where Orthodoxus distinctly asserts that the substance remains
unchanged. Transubstantiation, definitely declared an article of faith
in 1215, seems to have been first taught early in the 9th c. Vide Bp.
Harold Browne on Art. xxviii. and fail to
distinguish the nature of the body and of the Godhead we shall say to
thee, ‘If thou offer rightly and fail to distinguish rightly,
thou sinnest; hold thy peace.’13471347Gen. iv. 7. Sept.
Distinguish what belongs naturally to us, and what is peculiar to the
Word. For I had not what was naturally His, and He had not what was
naturally mine, but He took what was naturally mine in order to make us
partakers of what was His. And He received this not for confusion but
for completion.”

“Let them who say that the
nature of the Word has been changed into nature of the body say so no
more, lest by the same interpretation the nature of the Word seem to
have been changed into the corruption of sin. For there is a
distinction between what took, and what was taken. Power came over the
Virgin, as in the words of the angel to her, ‘The power of the
highest shall overshadow thee.’13491349Luke i. 35. The Latin of the
Benedictine edition of Ambrose is:— Desinant ergo dicere
naturam Verbi in Corporis naturam esse mutatam; ne pari interpretatione
videatur natura Verbi in contagium mutata peccati. Aliud est enim quod
assumpsit, et aliud quod assumptum est. Virtus venit in Virginem, sicut
et Angelus ad eam dixit “quia Virtus Altissimi obumbrabit
te.” Sed natum est corpus ex Virgine; et ideo cælestis
quidem descensio, sed humana conceptio est. Non ergo eadem carnis
potuit esse divinitatisque natura. But what was born was of the body of the
Virgin, and on this account the de207scent was divine but the
conception human. Therefore the nature of the flesh and of the godhead
could not be the same.”13501350 In
the Greek text the last sentence is unintelligible and apparently
corrupt. The translation follows the Latin text from which the version
in the citation of Theodoret varies in important particulars. The Greek
text of the quotation runs:—Παυσάσθωσαν
τοίνον οἱ
λεγοντες ὡς ἡ
τοῦ Λόγου
φύσις εἰς
σαρκὸς
μεταβέβληται
φύσιν· ἵνα μὴ
δόξῃ
μεταβληθεῖσα
κατὰ τὴν
αὑτὴν
ἑρμηνείαν
γεγενῆσθαι
καὶ ἡ τοῦ
Λόγου φύσις
τοῖς τοῦ
σώμὰτος
παθήμασι
σύμφθορος. &
169·Ετερον γάρ
ἐστι τὸ
προσλαβὸν
καὶ ἕτερόν
ἐστι τὸ
προσληφθέν.
Δύναμις
ἦλθεν ἐπὶ
τὴν παρθένον,
ὡς ὁ ἄγγελος
πρὸς αὐτὴν
λέγει ὅτι
Δύναμις
ὑψίστου
ἐπισκιάσει
σοι: & 135·λλ᾽ ἐκ
τοῦ σώματος
ἦν τῆς
Παρθένου τὸ
τεχθέν· καὶ
διὰ τοῦτο
Θεία μὲν ἡ
κατάβασις ἡ
δὲ σύλληψις
ἀνθρωπίνη·
οὐκ αὐτὴ οῦν
ἠδύνατο τοῦ
τε σὠματος
πνεῦμα καὶ
τῆς θεότητος
φύσις

The testimony of St. Basil,
Bishop of Cæsarea.

From his homily on
Thanksgiving:—

“Wherefore when He wept
over His friend He shewed His participation in human nature and set us
free from two extremes, suffering us neither to grow over soft in
suffering nor to be insensible to pain. As then the Lord suffered
hunger after solid food had been digested, and thirst when the moisture
in His body was exhausted; and was aweary when His nerves and sinews
were strained by His journeying, it was not that His divinity was
weighed down with toil, but that His body showed the wonted symptoms of
its nature. Thus too when He allowed Himself to weep He permitted the
flesh to take is natural course.”

From the same against
Eunomius:—

“I say that being in the
form of God has the same force as being in God’s substance for as
to have taken the form of a servant shews our Lord to have been of the
substance of the manhood, so the statement that He was in the form of
God attributes to Him the peculiar qualities of the divine
substance.”13511351 Cf. Phil. ii. 16

The testimony of the holy
Gregorius, bishop of Nazianzus.

From his discourse De nova
dominica:13521352 The passage quoted is not in the 43rd discourse de nova
dominica but in the 40th on Holy Baptism.—

“Believe that He will come
again at His glorious advent judging quick and dead,13531353Acts i. 11 no longer flesh but not without a
body.”

“God and man are two
natures, as soul and body are two; but there are not two sons, nor yet
are there here two men although Paul thus speaks of the outward man and
the inward man.135513552 Cor. iv. 16 In a word the
sources of the Saviour’s being are of two kinds, since the
visible is distinct from the invisible and the timeless from that which
is of time, but He is not two beings. God forbid.”

Of the same from the same
Exposition to Cledonius:—

“If any one says that the
flesh has now been laid aside, and that the Godhead is bare of body,
and that it is not and will not come with that which was assumed, let
him be deprived of the vision of the glory of the advent! For where is
the body now, save with Him that assumed it? For it assuredly has not
been, as the Manichees fable, swallowed up by the Son, that it may be
honoured through dishonour; it has not been poured out and dissolved in
the air like a voice and stream of perfume or flash of unsubstantial
lightning. And where is the capacity of being handled after the
resurrection, wherein one day it shall be seen by them that pierced
Him? For Godhead of itself is invisible.”

Of the same from the second
discourse about the Son:—

“As the Word He was
neither obedient nor disobedient, for these qualities belong to them
that are in subjection and to inferiors; the former of the more
tractable and the latter of them that deserve condemnation. But in the
form of a servant He accommodates Himself to his fellowservants and
puts on a form that was not His own, bearing in Himself all of me with
all that is mine, that in Himself He may waste and destroy the baser
parts as wax is wasted by fire or the mist of the earth by the
sun.”

Of the same from his discourse
on the Theophany:—

“Since He came forth from
the Virgin with the assumption of two things mutually opposed to one
another, flesh and spirit, whereof the one was taken into God and the
other exhibited the grace of the Godhead.”

Of the same a little further
on:—

“He was sent, but as Man.
For His nature was twofold, for without doubt He thenceforth was aweary
and hungered and thirsted and suffered agony and shed tears after the
custom of a human body.”

Of the same from his second
discourse about the Son:—

“He would be called God
not of the Word, but of the visible creation, for how could He be God
of Him that is absolutely God? Just so He is called Father, not of the
visible creation, but of the Word. For He was of two-fold nature.
Wherefore the one belongs absolutely to both, but the other not
absolutely.13561356 Here the text is corrupt. For He is absolutely 208our God, but not
absolutely our Father. And it is this conjunction of names which gives
rise to the error of heretics. A proof of this lies in the fact that
when natures are distinguished in thought, there is a distinction in
names. Listen to the words of Paul. ‘The God of our Lord Jesus
Christ, The Father of Glory,’13571357Ephes. i. 17—of
Christ He is God, of glory Father, and if both are one this is so not
by nature but by conjunction. What can be plainer than this? Fifthly
let it be said that He receives life, authority, inheritance of
nations, power over all flesh, glory, disciples or what you will; all
these belong to the manhood.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“‘For there is one
God and one Mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus.’135813581 Tim. ii. 5 As man He still pleads for my
salvation, because He keeps with Him the body which He took, till he
made me God by the power of the incarnation—though He be no
longer known according to the flesh that is by affections of the flesh
and though He be without sin.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“Is it not plain to all
that as God He knows, and is ignorant, He says, as man? If, that is,
any one distinguish the apparent from that which is an object of
intellectual perception. For what gives rise to this opinion is the
fact that the appellation of the Son is absolute without relation, it
not being added of whom He is the Son; so to give the most pious sense
to this ignorance we hold it to belong to the human, and not to the
divine.”

Testimony of the Holy Gregorius,
bishop of Nyssa.

From his catechetical
discourse:—

“And who says this that
the infinity of the Godhead is comprehended by the limitation of the
flesh, as by some vessel?”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“But if man’s soul
by necessity of its nature commingled with the body, is everywhere in
authority, what need is there of asserting that the Godhead is limited
by the nature of the flesh?”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“What hinders us then,
while recognising a certain unity and approximation of a divine nature
in relation to the human, from retaining the divine intelligence even
in this approximation, believing that the divine even when it exists in
men is beyond all limitation?”

Of the same from his work
against Eunomius:—

“The Son of Mary converses
with brothers, but the only begotten has no brothers, for how could the
name of only begotten be preserved among brothers? And the same Christ
that said ‘God is a spirit’13591359John iv. 24
says to His disciples ‘Handle me,’13601360Luke xxiv. 39
to shew that the human nature only can be handled and that the divine
is intangible; and He that said ‘I go’13611361John xiv. 28 indicates removal from place to place,
while He that comprehends all things and ‘by Whom,’ as says
the Apostle, ‘all things were created and by Whom all things
consist,’13621362Coloss. i. 16,
17 had among all
existing things nothing without and beyond Himself which can stand to
Him in the relation of motion or removal.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“‘Being by the right
hand of God exalted.’13631363Acts ii. 33 Who then was
exalted? The lowly or the most high? And what is the lowly if it be not
the human? And what is the most high save the divine? But God being
most high needs no exaltation, and so the Apostle says that the human
is exalted, exalted that is in being ‘made both Lord and
Christ.’13641364Acts ii. 36 Therefore the
Apostle does not mean by this term ‘He made’ the
everlasting existence of the Lord, but the change of the lowly to the
exalted which took place on the right hand of God. By this word he
declares the mystery of piety, for when he says ‘by the right
hand of God exalted’ he plainly reveals the ineffable
œconomy of the mystery that the right hand of God which created
all things, which is the Lord by whom all things were made and without
whom nothing consists of things that were made,13651365 Cf. John i. 2
through the union lifted up to Its own exaltation the manhood united to
It.”

“For after the
resurrection the Lord shews both—both that the body is not of
this nature, and that the body rises, for remember the history. After
the passion and the resurrection the disciples were gathered together,
and when the doors were shut the Lord stood in the midst of them. Never
at 209any time
before the passion did He do this. Could not then the Christ have done
this even long before? For all things are possible to God.13681368Matt. xix. 26. Mark x.
27 But before the passion He did not do
so lest you should suppose the incarnation an unreality or appearance,
and think of the flesh of the Christ as spiritual, or that it came down
from heaven and is of another substance than our flesh. Some have
invented all these theories with the idea that thereby they reverence
the Lord, forgetful that through their thanksgiving they blaspheme
themselves, and accuse the truth of a lie: for I say nothing of the lie
being altogether absurd. For if He took another body how does that
affect mine, which stands in need of salvation? If He brought down
flesh from heaven, how does this affect my flesh which was derived from
earth?”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“Wherefore not before the
passion, but after the passion, the Lord stood in the midst of the
disciples when the doors were shut, that thou mayest know that thy
natural body after being sown is ‘raised a spiritual
body,’136913691 Cor. xv and that thou mayest not suppose
the body that is raised to be a different body. When Thomas after the
resurrection doubted, He shews him the prints of the nails, He shews
him the marks of the spears. But had He not power to heal Himself after
the resurrection too, when even before the resurrection He had healed
all men? But by shewing the prints of the nails He shews that it is
this very body; by coming in when the doors were shut He shews that it
has not the same qualities; the same body to fulfil the work of the
incarnation by raising that which had become a corpse, but a changed
body that it fall not again under corruption nor be subject again to
death.”

Testimony of the blessed
Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria.

From his work against
Origen:—

“Our likeness which He
assumed is not changed into the nature of Godhead nor is His Godhead
turned into our likeness. For He remains what He was from the beginning
God, and He so remains preserving our subsistence in
Himself.”

Of the same from the same
treatise:—

“But you persist
continually in your blasphemies attacking the Son of God, and using
these words ‘as the Son and the Father are one, so also are the
soul which the Son took and the Son Himself one.’ You are
ignorant that the Son and the Father are one on account of their one
substance and the same Godhead; but the soul and the Son are each of a
different substance and different nature. For if the soul of the Son
and the Son Himself are one in the same sense in which the Father and
the Son are one, then the Father and the Soul will be one and the soul
of the Son shall one day say ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the
Father;’13701370John xiv. 9 but this is not
so; God forbid. For the Son and the Father are one because there is no
distinction between their qualities, but the soul and the Son are
distinguished alike in nature and substance, in that the soul which is
naturally of one substance with us was made by Him. For if the soul and
the Son are one in the same manner in which the Father and the Son are
one, as Origen would have it, then the soul equally with the Son will
be ‘the brightness of God’s glory and express image of His
person.’13711371Hebrews i. 3 But this is
impossible; impossible that the Son and the soul should be one as He
and the Father are one. And what will Origen do when again he attacks
himself? For he writes, never could the soul distressed and
‘exceeding sorrowful’13721372Matt. xxvi.
38 be the
‘firstborn of every creature.’13731373Coloss. i. 15 For God the Word, as being stronger
than the soul, the Son Himself, says ‘I have power to lay it down
and I have power to take it again.’13741374John x. 18 If then the Son is stronger than His
own soul, as is agreed, how can His soul be equal to God and in the
form of God? For we say that ‘He emptied Himself and took upon
Him the form of a servant.’13751375Phil. ii. 7 In the
extravagance of his impieties Origen surpasses all other heretics, as
we have shewn, for if the Word exists in the form of God and is equal
to God and if he supposes thus daring to write the soul of the Saviour
to be in the form of God and equal with God, how can the equal be
greater, when the inferior in nature testifies to the superiority of
what is beyond it?”

Testimony of the Holy John
Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople.

From the Discourse held in the
Great Church:—

“Thy Lord exalted man to
heaven, and thou wilt not even give him a share of the agora. But why
do I say ‘to heaven’? He seated man on a kingly throne.
Thou expellest him from the city.”

“Up to this day Paul does
not cease to say ‘We are ambassadors for Christ as though God did
beseech you by us; we pray you in 210Christ’s stead, be ye
reconciled to God.’137613762 Cor. v. 20 Nor did He
stand here, but taking the first fruits of thy nature He sat down
‘above all principality and power and might, and every name that
is named not only in this world but in the world to come.’13771377Ephes. i. 21 What could be equal to this honour?
The first fruits of our race which has so much offended and is so
dishonoured sits so high and enjoys honour so vast.”

Of the same about the division
of tongues:—

“For bethink thee what it
is to see our nature riding on the Cherubim and all the power of heaven
mustered round about it. Consider too Paul’s wisdom and how many
terms he searches for that he may set forth the love of Christ to men,
for he does not say simply the grace, nor yet simply the riches, but
the ‘exceeding great riches of His grace in His
kindness.’”13781378Ephes. ii. 7

Of the same from his Dogmatic
Oration, on the theme that the word spoken and deeds done in humility
by Christ were not so spoken and done on account of infirmity, but on
account of differences of dispensation:—

“And after His
resurrection, when He saw His disciple disbelieving, He did not shrink
from shewing him both wound and print of nails, and letting him lay his
hand upon the scars, and said ‘Examine and see, for a spirit hath
not flesh and bones.’13791379 Cf. Luke xxiv. 39. and
John xx. 27. and cf. note on page 235. The reason of
His not assuming the manhood of full age from the beginning, and of His
deigning to be conceived, to be born, to be suckled, and to live so
long upon the earth, was that by the long period of the time and all
the other circumstances, He might give a warranty for this very
thing.”

Of the same against those who
assert that demons rule human affairs:—

“Nothing was more
worthless than man and than man nothing has become more precious. He
was the last part of the reasonable creation, but the feet have been
made the head, and through the firstfruits have been borne up to the
kingly throne. Just as some man noble and bountiful, on seeing a wretch
escaped from shipwreck who has saved nothing but his bare body from the
waves, welcomes him with open hands, clothes him in a radiant robe, and
exalts him to the highest honour, so too hath God done towards our
nature. Man had lost all that he had, his freedom, his intercourse with
God, his abode in Paradise, his painless life, whence he came forth
like a man all naked from a wreck, but God received him and straightway
clothed him, and, taking him by the hand, led him onward step by step
and brought him up to heaven.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“But God made the gain
greater than the loss, and exalted our nature to the royal throne. So
Paul exclaims ‘And have raised us up together and made us sit
together in heavenly places’13801380Ephes. ii. 6 at His
right hand.”

Of the same from his IIIrd oration against the
Jews:—

“He opened the heavens; of
foes he made friends; He introduced them into heaven; He seated our
nature on the right hand of the throne; He gave us countless other good
things.”

Of the same from his discourse
on the Ascension:—

“To this distance and
height did He exalt our nature. Look where low it lay, and where it
mounted up. Lower it was impossible to descend than where man
descended; higher it was impossible to rise than where He exalted
him.”

Of the same from his
interpretation of the Epistle to the Ephesians:—

“According to His good
pleasure, which He had proposed in himself, that is which He earnestly
desired, He was as it were in labour to tell us the mystery. And what
is this mystery? That He wishes to seat man on high; as in truth came
to pass.”

Of the same from the same
interpretation:—

“God of our Lord Jesus
Christ speaks of this and not of God the Word.”

Of the same from the same
interpretation:—

“‘And when we were
dead in sins He quickened us together in Christ;’13811381Ephes. ii. 5 again Christ stands in the midst, and
the work is wonderful. If the first fruits live we live also. He
quickened both Him and us. Seest thou that all these things are spoken
according to the flesh?”

Of the same from the gospel
according to St. John:—

“Why does he add
‘and dwelt among us’?13821382John i. 14ἐσκήνωσεν It is as
though he said: Imagine nothing absurd from the phrase ‘was
made.’ For I have not mentioned any change in that unchangeable
nature, but of tabernacling13831383σκήνωσις and of
inhabiting. Now that which tabernacles is not identical with the
tabernacle, 211but one thing tabernacles in another; otherwise there would be no
tabernacling. Nothing inhabits itself. I spoke of a distinction of
substance. For by the union and the conjunction God the Word and the
flesh are one without confusion or destruction of the substances, but
by ineffable and indescribable union.”

Of the same from the gospel
according to St. Matthew:—

“Just as one standing in
the space between two that are separated from one another, stretches
out both his hands and joins them, so too did He, joining the old and
the new, the divine nature and the human, His own with
ours.”

Of the same from the Ascension
of Christ:—

“For so when two champions
stand ready for the fight, some other intervening between them, at once
stops the struggle, and puts an end to their ill will, so too did
Christ. As God He was wroth, but we made light of His wrath, and turned
away our faces from our loving Lord. Then Christ flung Himself in the
midst, and restored both natures to mutual love, and Himself took on
Him the weight of the punishment laid by the Father on
us.”

Of the same from the same
work:—

“Lo He brought the first
fruits of our nature to the Father and the Father Himself approved the
gift, alike on account of the high dignity of Him that bought it and of
the faultlessness of the offering. He received it in His own hands, He
made a chair of His own throne; nay more He seated it on His own right
hand, let us then recognise who it was to whom it was said ‘Sit
thou on my right hand’13841384Psalm cx. 1 and what was
that nature to which God said ‘Dust thou art and to dust thou
shalt return.’”13851385Gen. iii. 19

Of the same a little further
on:—

“What arguments to use,
what words to utter I cannot tell; the nature which was rotten,
worthless, declared lowest of all, vanquished everything and overcame
the world. To-day it hath been thought worthy to be made higher than
all, to-day it hath received what from old time angels have desired;
to-day it is possible for archangels to be made spectators of what has
been for ages longed for, and they contemplate our nature, shining on
the throne of the King in the glory of His
immortality.”

Testimony of St. Flavianus,
bishop of Antioch.

From the Gospel according to St.
Luke:—

“In all of us the Lord
writes the express image of His holiness, and in various ways shows our
nature the way of salvation. Many and clear proofs does He give us both
of His bodily advent and of His Godhead working by a body’s
means. For He wished to give us assurance of both His
natures.”

Of the same on the
Theophany:—

“‘Who can express
the noble acts of the Lord, or shew forth all His praise?’13861386Ps. cvi. 2 who could express in words the
greatness of His goodness toward us? Human nature is joined to Godhead,
while both natures remain independent.”

Testimony of Cyril, bishop
Jerusalem.

From his fourth catechetical
oration concerning the ten dogmas.

Of the birth from a
virgin:—

“Believe thou that this
only begotten Son of God, on account of our sins, came down from heaven
to earth, having taken on Him this manhood of like passions with us,
and being born of holy Virgin and of Holy Ghost. This incarnation was
effected, not in seeming and unreality, but in reality. He did not only
pass through the Virgin, as through a channel, but was verily made
flesh of her. Like us He really ate, and of the Virgin was really
suckled. For if the incarnation was an unreality, then our salvation is
a delusion. The Christ was twofold—the visible man, the invisible
God. He ate as man, verily like ourselves, for the flesh that He wore
was of like passions with us; He fed the five thousand with five
loaves13871387Matt. xiv. 15, etc., Mark
vi. 35, etc., Luke ix. 9, etc., John vi. 5, etc. as God. As man He really died.
As God He raised the dead on the fourth day.13881388John xi. 43 As man He slept in the boat. As God
He walked upon the waters.”13891389Matt. vii. 24; John vi.
19

Testimony of Antiochus,
bishop of Ptolemais:13901390 This and another fragment in the Catena on St. John xix. 443, is
all that survives of the works of Antiochus of Ptolemais, an eloquent
opponent of Chrysostom at Constantinople, and like him, said to have a
“mouth of gold.”—

“Do not confound the
natures and you will have a lively apprehension of the
incarnation.”

212“He who knoweth not Jesus the Christ as very God and as very
man, knoweth not in reality his own life, for we incur the same peril
if we deny Christ Jesus or God the spirit, or the flesh of our own
body. ‘Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men him will I
confess also before my Father which is in Heaven, but whosoever shall
deny me before men him will I also deny before my Father which is in
Heaven.’13921392Matt. x. 32,
33 These things
spoke the Word made flesh; these things the man Christ Jesus, Lord of
Glory, taught, being made Mediator for the salvation of the Church in
the very mystery whereby He mediated between God and men. Both being
made one out of the natures united for this very purpose, He was one
and the same through either nature, but so that in both He fell short
in neither, lest haply by being born as man He should cease to be God,
or by remaining God should not be man. Therefore this is the
blessedness of the true faith among men to preach both God and man, to
confess both word and flesh, to recognise that God was also man, and
not to be ignorant that the flesh is also Word.”

“So the only begotten God
being born man of a Virgin and in the fulness of the time, being
Himself ordained to work out the advance of man to God, observed this
order of things, through all the words of the gospels, that He might
teach belief in Himself, as Son of God, and keep us in mind to preach
Him as Son of Man. As being man He always spoke and acted as is proper
to man, but in such a manner as never to speak in this same mode of
speech as touching both save with the intention of signifying both God
and Man. But hence the heretics derive a pretext for catching in their
traps simple and ignorant men: what was spoken by our Lord in
accordance with His manhood they falsely assert to have been uttered in
the weakness of His divine nature, and since one and the same person
spake all the words He used they urged that all He uttered He uttered
about Himself. Now even we do not deny that all His extant words are of
His own nature. But granted that the one Christ is man and God; granted
that when man He was not then first God; granted that when man He was
then also God, granted that after the assumption of the manhood in the
Lord, the Word was man and the Word was God, it follows of necessity
that there is one and the same mystery of His words as there is of His
generation. Whenever in Him, as occasion may require, you distinguish
the manhood from the Godhead, then also endeavour to separate the words
of God from the words of man. And whenever you confess God and man,
then discern the words of God and man. And when the words are spoken of
God and man, and again of man wholly and wholly of God, consider
carefully the occasion. If anything was spoken to signify what was
appropriate to a particular occasion, apply the words to the occasion.
A distinction must be observed between God before the manhood, man and
God, man wholly and God wholly after the union of the manhood and
Godhead. Take heed therefore not to confuse the mystery of the
incarnation in the words and acts. For it must needs be that according
to the quality of the kinds of natures a distinction lies in the manner
of speech, before the manhood was born, in accordance with the mystery
when it was still approaching death, and again when it was everlasting.
‘For if in His birth and in His passion and in His death He acted
in accordance with our nature He nevertheless effected all this by the
power of His own nature.’”

Of the same in the same
book:—

“Do you then see that thus
God and man are confessed, so that death is predicated of man, and the
resurrection of the flesh, of God; for consider the nature of God and
the 213power
of the resurrection, and recognise in the death the œconomy as
touching man. And since both death and resurrection have been brought
about in their own natures, bear in mind, I beg you, the one Christ
Jesus, who was of both. I have shortly demonstrated these points to you
to the end that we may remember both natures to have been in our Lord
Jesus Christ ‘for being in the form of God He took the form of a
servant.’”13941394Phil. ii. 7

Testimony of the very holy
bishop Augustinus.

From his letter to Volusianus.
Epistle III:

“But now He appeared as
Mediator between God and man, so as in the unity of His person to
conjoin both natures, by combining the wonted with the unwonted, and
the unwonted with the wonted.”

Of the same from his exposition
of the Gospel according to John:13951395 Tract 78.—

“What then, O heretic?
Since Christ is also man, He speaks as man; and dost thou slander God?
He in Himself lifts man’s nature on high, and thou hast the
hardihood to cheapen His divine nature.”

Of the same from his book on the
Exposition at the Faith:—

“It is ours to believe,
but His to know, and so let God the Word Himself, after receiving all
that is proper to man, be man, and let man after His assumption and
reception of all that is God, be no other than God. It must not be
supposed because He is said to have been incarnate and mixed that
therefore His substance was diminished. God knows that He mixes Himself
without the natural corruption, and He is mixed in reality. He knows
also that He so received in Himself as that no addition of increment
accrues to Himself, as also He knows He infused His whole self so as to
incur no diminution. Let us not then, in accordance with our weak
intelligence, and forming conjectures on the teaching of experience and
the senses, suppose that God and man are mixed after the manner of
things created and equal mixed together, and that from such a confusion
as this of the Word and of the flesh a body as it were was made. God
forbid that this should be our belief, lest we should suppose that
after the manner of things which are confounded together two natures
were brought into one hypostasis.13961396 cf. p. 36. Here ὐπόστασις = person. For a
mention of this kind implies destruction of both parts; but Christ
Himself, containing but not contained, who examines us but is Himself
beyond examination, making full but not made full, everywhere at one
and the same time being Himself whole and pervading the universe,
through His pouring out His own power, as being moved with mercy, was
mingled with the nature of man, though the nature of man was not
mingled with the divine.”

Testimony of Severianus,
bishop of Gabala.13971397 Severianus, like Antiochus of Ptolemais, was moved to leave his
remote diocese (Gabala is now Gibili, not far south of Latakia) to try
his fortunes as a popular preacher at Constantinople: There he met with
success, and was kindly treated by Chrysostom, but he turned against
his friend, and was a prime agent in the plots against him. The date of
his death is unknown.

From “the Nativity of
Christ”:—

“O mystery truly heavenly
and yet on earth—mystery seen and not apparent for so was the
Christ after His birth; heavenly and yet on earth; holding and not
held; seen and invisible; of Heaven as touching the nature of the
Godhead, on earth as touching the nature of the manhood; seen in the
flesh, invisible in the spirit; held as to the body not to be holden as
to the Word.”

Testimony of
Atticus,13981398 Cf. p. 154, note. Atticus was a determined opponent of heresy as
well as of Chrysostom.bishop of Constantinople.

From his letter to
Eupsychius:—

“How then did it behove
the Most Wise to act? By mediation of the flesh assumed, and by union
of God the Word with man born of Mary, He is made of either nature, so
that the Christ made one of both, as constituted in Godhead, abides in
the proper dignity of His impassible nature, but in flesh, being
brought near to death, at one and the same time shews the kindred
nature of the flesh how through death to despise death, and by His
death confirms the righteousness of the new covenant.”

“The natures which have
been brought together in the true unity are distinct, and of both there
is one God and Son, but the difference of the natures has not been
removed in consequence of the union.”

Of the same from his letter
against the Orientals:14001400 id.
vi. 157.—

“There is an union of two
natures, wherefore we acknowledge one Christ, one Son, one Lord. In
accordance with this perception of the unconfounded union we
acknowledge the Holy Virgin as Mother of God14011401 The
word in the text is the famous θεοτόκος, the watchword of the Nestorian controversy. It may be
doubtful whether either the English “Mother of God” or the
Latin “Deipara” exactly represents the idea intended
to be expressed by the subtler Greek. Even Nestorius did not object to
the Θεοτόκος when rightly understood. The explanation of the symbolum
drawn up by Theodoret himself at Ephesus for presentation to the
Emperor is “᾽Ενα
χριστὸν, ἕνα
υἱ& 232·ν, ἕνα
κύριον
ὁμολογοῦμεν.
κατὰ ταύτην
τῆς
ἀσυγχύτου
ἑνώσεως
ἔννοιαν
ὁμολογοῦμεν
τὴν ἁγίαν,
παρθένον
θεοτόκον, διὰ
τὸ τὸν θεὸν
λόγον
σαρκωθῆναι
καὶ
ἐνανθρωπῆσαι
καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς
τῆς
συλλήψεως
ἑνῶσαι ἑαυτῷ
τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς
ληφθέντα
ναόν.” The great
point sought to be asserted was, the union of the two Natures. Gregory
of Nazianzus (li. 738) says ῎Ει
τις οὐ
θεοτόκον τὴν
Μαρίαν
ὑπολαμβάνει
χωρίς ἐστι
τῆς
Θεότητος214because the Word of God was
made flesh and was made man, and from the very conception united to
Himself the temper taken from her.”14021402 Here
Cyril adopts the terms of the document given in the preceding
note.

Of the same:—

“There is one Lord Jesus
Christ, even if the difference be recognised of the natures of which we
assert the ineffable union to have been made.”

Of the same:—

“Therefore, as I said,
while praising the manner of the incarnation, we see that two natures
came together in inseparable union without confusion and without
division,14031403ἀσυγχύτως
καὶ
ἀδιαιρέτως. These adverbs recall the famous words of Hooker. Ecc.
Pol. v. 54. 10. “There are but
four things which concur to make complete the whole state of our Lord
Jesus Christ: his Deity, his manhood, the conjunction of both, and the
distinction of the one from the other being joined in one. Four
principal heresies there are which have in those things withstood the
truth: Arians, by bending themselves against the Deity of Christ;
Apollinarians, by maiming and misinterpreting that which belongeth to
his human nature; Nestorians, by rending Christ asunder, and dividing
him into two persons; the followers of Eutyches, by confounding in his
person those natures which they should distinguish. Against these there
have been four most famous ancient general councils: the council of
Nice to define against Arians; against Apollinarians the Council of
Constantinople; the councilor Ephesus against Nestorians; against
Eutychians the Chalcedon Council. In four words, ἀληθῶς, τελέως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀσυγχύτως, truly, perfectly, indivisibly, distinctly; the first
applied to his being God, and the second to his being Man, the third to
his being of both One, and the fourth to his continuing in that one
Both: we may fully by way of Abridgement comprise whatsoever antiquity
hath at large handled either in declaration of Christian belief, or in
refutation of the foresaid heresies. Within the compass of which four
heads, I may truly affirm, that all heresies which touch but the person
of Jesus Christ, whether they have risen in these later days, or in any
age heretofore, may be with great facility brought to confine
themselves.” for the flesh is flesh and no kind
of Godhead, although it was made flesh of God; in like manner the Word
is God, and not flesh, although He made the flesh His own according to
the œconomy.”

Of the same from his
interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews:—

“For although the natures
which came together in unity are regarded as different and unequal with
one another, I mean of flesh and of God, nevertheless the Son, Who was
made of both, is one.”

Of the same from his
interpretation of the same Epistle:—

“Yet though the only
begotten Word of God is said to be united in hypostasis to flesh, we
deny there was any confusion of the natures with one another, and
declare each to remain what it is.”

Of the same from his
commentaries:—

“The Father’s Word,
born of the Virgin, is named man, though being by nature God as
partaking of flesh and blood like us14041404Hebrews ii.
14 for thus He
was seen by men upon earth, without getting rid of His own nature, but
assuming our Manhood perfect according to its own
reason.”

Of the same concerning the
Incarnation (Schol. c. 13):—

“Then before the
incarnation there is one Very God, and in manhood He remains what He
was and is and will be; the one Lord Jesus Christ then must not be
separated into man apart and into God apart, but recognising the
difference of the natures and preserving them unconfounded with one
another, we assert that there is one and the same Christ
Jesus.”

Of the same after other
commentaries:—

“There is plain perception
of one thing dwelling in another, namely the divine nature in manhood,
without undergoing commixture or any confusion, or any change into what
it was not. For what is said to dwell in another does not become the
same as that in which it dwells, but is rather regarded as one thing in
another. But in the nature of the Word and of the manhood the
difference points out to us a difference of natures alone, for of both
is perceived one Christ. Therefore he says that the Word
‘Tabernacled among us,’14051405John i. 14 carefully
observing the freedom from confusion, for he recognises one only
begotten Son who was made flesh and became man.”

Now, my dear sir, you have heard
the great lights of the world; you have seen the beams of their
teaching, and you have received exact instruction how, not only after
the nativity, but after the passion which wrought salvation, and the
resurrection, and the ascension, they have shewn the union of the
Godhead and of the manhood to be without confusion.

Eran.—I did not suppose that they distinguished the natures after
the union, but I have found an infinite amount of
distinction.

Orth.—It is mad and rash against those noble champions of the
faith so much as to wag your tongue. But I will adduce for you the
words of Apollinarius, in order that you may know that he too asserts
the union to be without confusion. Now hear his words.

Testimony of
Apollinarius.

From his
summary:—

“There is an union between
what is of God and what is of the body. On the one side is the adorable
Creator Who is wisdom and power eternal; these are of the
God215head. On
the other hand is the Son of Mary, born at the last time, worshipping
God, advancing in wisdom, strengthened in power; these are of the body.
The suffering on behalf of sin and the curse came and will not pass
away nor yet be changed into the incorporeal.”

And again a little further
on:—

“Men are consubstantial
with the unreasoning animals as far as the unreasoning body is
concerned; they are of another substance in so far forth as they are
reasonable. Just so God who is consubstantial with men according to the
flesh is of another substance in so far forth as He is Word and
Man.”

And in another place he
says:—

“Of things which are
mingled together the qualities are mixed and not destroyed. Thus it
comes to pass that some are separate from the mixed parts as wine from
water, nor yet is there mingling with a body, nor yet as of bodies with
bodies, but the mingling preserves also the unmixed, so that, as each
occasion may require, the energy of the Godhead either acts
independently or in conjunction, as was the case when the Lord fasted,
for the Godhead being in conjunction in proportion to its being above
need, hunger was hindered, but when it no longer opposed to the craving
its superiority to need, then hunger arose, to the undoing of the
devil. But if the mixture of the bodies suffered no change, how much
more that of the Godhead?”

And in another place he
says:—

“If the mixture with iron
which makes the iron itself fire does not change its nature, so too the
union of God with the body implies no change of the body, even though
the body extend its divine energies to what is within its
reach.”

To this he immediately
adds:—

“If a man has both soul
and body, and these remain in unity, much more does the Christ, who has
Godhead and body, keep both secure and unconfounded.”

And again a little further
on:—

“For human nature is
partaker of the divine energy, as far as it is capable, but it is as
distinct as the least from the greatest. Man is a servant of God, but
God is not servant of man, nor even of Himself. Man is a creature of
God, but God is not a creature of man, nor even of
Himself.”

And again:—

“If any one takes in
reference to Godhead and not in reference to flesh the passage the
‘Son doeth what He seeth the Father do,’14061406John v. 19 wherein He Who was made flesh is distinct
from the Father Who was not made flesh, divides two divine energies.
But there is no division. So He does not speak in reference to
Godhead.”

Again he says:—

“As man is not an
unreasoning being, on account of the contact of the reasoning and the
unreasoning, just so the Saviour is not a creature on account of the
contact of the creature with God uncreate.”

To this he also
adds:—

“The invisible which is
united to a visible body and thereby is beheld, remains invisible, and
it remains without composition because it is not circumscribed with the
body, and the body, remaining in its own measure, accepts the union
with God in accordance with its being quickened, nor is it that which
is quickened which quickens.”

And a little further on he
says:—

“If the mixture with soul
and body, although from the beginning they coalesce, does not make the
soul visible on account of the body, nor change it into the other
properties of the body, so as to allow of its being cut or lessened,
how much rather God, who is not of the same nature as the body, is
united to the body without undergoing change, if the body of man
remains in its own nature, and this when it is animated by a soul, then
in the case of Christ the commingling does not so change the body as
that it is not a body.”

And further on he says
again:—

“He who confesses that
soul and body are constituted one by the Scripture, is inconsistent
with himself when he asserts that this union of the Word with the body
is a change, such change being not even beheld in the case of a
soul.”

Listen to him again exclaiming
clearly:—

“If they are impious who
deny that the flesh of the Lord abides, much more are they who refuse
wholly to accept His incarnation.”

And in his little book about the
Incarnation he has written:—

“The words ‘Sit thou
on my right hand’14071407Ps. cx. 1 He speaks as to
man, for they are not spoken to Him that sits ever on the throne of
glory, as God the Word after His ascension from earth, but they are
said to Him who hath now been exalted to the heavenly glory as man, as
the Apostles say ‘for David is not ascended into the heavens, but
he saith himself the Lord said unto my Lord sit thou on my right
hand.’14081408Acts ii. 34 The order is human, giving a
beginning to the sitting; but it is a divine dignity to sit together
with God ‘to whom thousand thousands minister and 216before whom ten thousand
times ten thousand stand.’”14091409Dan. vii. 10

And again a little further
on:—

“He does not put His
enemies under Him as God but as man, but so that the God who is seen
and man are the same. Paul too teaches us that the words ‘until I
make thy foes thy footstool’14101410Acts ii. 35 are spoken to
men, describing the success as His own of course in accordance with His
divinity ‘According to the working whereby He is able even to
subdue all things unto Himself.’14111411Phil. iii. 21
Behold Godhead and manhood existing inseparably in One
Person.”

And again:—

“‘Glorify me with
thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world
was.’14121412John xvii. 5 The word ‘glorify’ He
uses as man, but His having this glory before the ages He reveals as
God.”

And again:—

“But let us not be
humiliated as thinking the worship of the Son of God humiliation, even
in His human likeness, but as though honouring some king appearing in
poor raiment with his royal glory, and above all seeing that the very
garb in which He is clad is glorified, as became the body of God and of
the world’s Saviour which is seed of eternal life, instrument of
divine deeds, destroyer of all wickedness, slayer of death and prince
of resurrection; for though it had its nature from man it derived its
life from God, and its power and divine virtue from
heaven.”

And again:—

“Whence we worship the
body as the Word; we partake of the body as of the
spirit.”

Now it has been plainly shewn
you that the author who was first to introduce the mixture of the
natures openly uses the argument of a distinction between them; thus he
has called the body garb, creature and instrument; he even went so far
as to call it slave, which none of us has ever ventured to do. He also
says that it was deemed worthy of the seat on the right hand, and uses
many other expressions which are rejected by your vain
heresy.

Eran.—But why then did he who was the first to introduce the
mixture insert so great a distinction in his arguments?

Orth.—The power of truth forces even them that vehemently fight
against her to agree with what she says, but, if you will, let us now
begin a discussion about the impassibility of the Lord.

Eran.—You know that musicians are accustomed to give their
strings rest, and they slacken them by turning the pegs; if then things
altogether void of reason and soul stand in need of some recreation, we
who partake of both shall do nothing absurd if we mete out our labour
in proportion to our power. Let us then put it off till
tomorrow.

Orth.—The divine David charges us to give heed to the divine
oracles by night and by day; but let it be as you say, and let us keep
the investigation of the remainder of our subject till
to-morrow.

1175φυτικός, of or belonging to φυτόν, or plant;
but though φυτὸν is opposed
to ξῷον, it is also used
of any creature, and here seems to mean no more than the soul of
physical life, and nothing beyond.

1179Gen. xlvi. 20, lxx. In the
Hebrew the number is but seventy, including Jacob himself. St. Stephen,
as was natural in a Hellenized Jew follows the lxx. (Acts vii.
14.)
For the number 75 there were doubtless important traditional
authorities known to the lxx.

1181 This “lost” must be qualified. The Scriptural doctrine
is that the “image of God” though defaced and marred, is
not lost or destroyed. After the flood the “image of God”
is still quoted as against murder Gen. ix. 6. St. James urges
it as a reason against cursing (iv.
9).
cf. 1
Cor. xi. 7. So the IXth Article declares original sin to be, not the nature,
which is good, but the “fault and corruption of the nature of
every man;” in short the “image of God,” like the
gifts of God, as David in Browning’s “Saul” has it,
“a man may waste, desecrate, never quite lose.” cf.
p. 164 and note.

1241 The
metallic compound called electron is described by Strabo p. 146 as the
mixed residuum, or scouring, (κάθαρμα) left after the first smelting of gold ore. Pliny (H. N. xxxiii.
23) describes it as containing 1 part silver to 4 gold. cf. Soph.
Antig. 1038, and Herod. i. 50.

1254 This, it will be remembered is the analogy employed in the
“Quicunque vult.”

1255 All
through the argument there seems to be some confusion between the two
senses of ψυχή as denoting the
immortal and the animal part of man, and so between the ψυχικόν
and the πνευματικόν. According to the Pauline psychology, (cf. in 1 Cor.
15)
the immortal and invisible could not be said to be proper to the
σῶμα
ψυχικόν.
This “natural body” is a body of death (Rom. vii. 24) and requires to
be redeemed (Rom. viii. 23) and changed into the
“house which is from heaven.” (2 Cor. v. 2.) Something of
the same confusion attaches to the common use of the word
“soul” to which we find the language of Holy Scripture
frequently accommodated. On the popular language of the dichotomy and
the more exact trichotomy of 1 Thess. v.
23 a
note of Bp. Ellicott on that passage may well be consulted.

1306 The
quotation is not from the canonical gospels. Eusebius (iii. 36) says he
does not know from what source it comes. Jerome states it to be derived
from the gospel lately translated by him, the gospel according to the
Hebrews (Vir. Ill. 2). Origen ascribes the words to the
“Doctrina Petri.” (de Princ. Præf. 8) Bp.
Lightfoot, by whom the matter is fully discussed, (Ap. Fath. pt. II.
Vol. ii. p. 295) thinks that either Jerome, more suo, was
forgetful, or had a different recension of the gospel to the Hebrews
from that used by Origen and Eusebius. Ignatius may be quoting a verbal
tradition. Bp. Lightfoot further points out that Origen (l. c.)
supposes the author of the Doctrina Petri to use this
epithet ἀσώαατον not in its philosophical sense (= incorporeal) but as
meaning composed of some subtle substance and without a gross body like
man. Further Origen (c. Cels. V. 5) warns us that to Christians the
word dæmon has a special connotation, in reference to the powers
that deceive and distract men.

1346“Offeras transfigurandum altaribus.” The Benedictine Editors, by a curious anachronism, see here
a reference to transubstantiation. But μεταποίησις, the word translated “transformation” implies
no more than the being made to undergo a change, which may be a change
in dignity without involving a change of substance. cf. pp. 200 and
201, where Orthodoxus distinctly asserts that the substance remains
unchanged. Transubstantiation, definitely declared an article of faith
in 1215, seems to have been first taught early in the 9th c. Vide Bp.
Harold Browne on Art. xxviii.

1390 This and another fragment in the Catena on St. John xix. 443, is
all that survives of the works of Antiochus of Ptolemais, an eloquent
opponent of Chrysostom at Constantinople, and like him, said to have a
“mouth of gold.”

1397 Severianus, like Antiochus of Ptolemais, was moved to leave his
remote diocese (Gabala is now Gibili, not far south of Latakia) to try
his fortunes as a popular preacher at Constantinople: There he met with
success, and was kindly treated by Chrysostom, but he turned against
his friend, and was a prime agent in the plots against him. The date of
his death is unknown.

1398 Cf. p. 154, note. Atticus was a determined opponent of heresy as
well as of Chrysostom.

1401 The
word in the text is the famous θεοτόκος, the watchword of the Nestorian controversy. It may be
doubtful whether either the English “Mother of God” or the
Latin “Deipara” exactly represents the idea intended
to be expressed by the subtler Greek. Even Nestorius did not object to
the Θεοτόκος when rightly understood. The explanation of the symbolum
drawn up by Theodoret himself at Ephesus for presentation to the
Emperor is “᾽Ενα
χριστὸν, ἕνα
υἱ& 232·ν, ἕνα
κύριον
ὁμολογοῦμεν.
κατὰ ταύτην
τῆς
ἀσυγχύτου
ἑνώσεως
ἔννοιαν
ὁμολογοῦμεν
τὴν ἁγίαν,
παρθένον
θεοτόκον, διὰ
τὸ τὸν θεὸν
λόγον
σαρκωθῆναι
καὶ
ἐνανθρωπῆσαι
καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς
τῆς
συλλήψεως
ἑνῶσαι ἑαυτῷ
τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς
ληφθέντα
ναόν.” The great
point sought to be asserted was, the union of the two Natures. Gregory
of Nazianzus (li. 738) says ῎Ει
τις οὐ
θεοτόκον τὴν
Μαρίαν
ὑπολαμβάνει
χωρίς ἐστι
τῆς
Θεότητος

1402 Here
Cyril adopts the terms of the document given in the preceding
note.

1403ἀσυγχύτως
καὶ
ἀδιαιρέτως. These adverbs recall the famous words of Hooker. Ecc.
Pol. v. 54. 10. “There are but
four things which concur to make complete the whole state of our Lord
Jesus Christ: his Deity, his manhood, the conjunction of both, and the
distinction of the one from the other being joined in one. Four
principal heresies there are which have in those things withstood the
truth: Arians, by bending themselves against the Deity of Christ;
Apollinarians, by maiming and misinterpreting that which belongeth to
his human nature; Nestorians, by rending Christ asunder, and dividing
him into two persons; the followers of Eutyches, by confounding in his
person those natures which they should distinguish. Against these there
have been four most famous ancient general councils: the council of
Nice to define against Arians; against Apollinarians the Council of
Constantinople; the councilor Ephesus against Nestorians; against
Eutychians the Chalcedon Council. In four words, ἀληθῶς, τελέως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀσυγχύτως, truly, perfectly, indivisibly, distinctly; the first
applied to his being God, and the second to his being Man, the third to
his being of both One, and the fourth to his continuing in that one
Both: we may fully by way of Abridgement comprise whatsoever antiquity
hath at large handled either in declaration of Christian belief, or in
refutation of the foresaid heresies. Within the compass of which four
heads, I may truly affirm, that all heresies which touch but the person
of Jesus Christ, whether they have risen in these later days, or in any
age heretofore, may be with great facility brought to confine
themselves.”